Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20070430

Docket: A-412-06

Citation: 2007 FCA 175

 

CORAM:       LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

                        EVANS J.A.

                        SHARLOW J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

JOSEPH GEORGE ZADOR

Appellant

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

 

 

Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on April 30, 2007.

Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on April 30, 2007.

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE  COURT BY:                                            SHARLOW J.A.

 


Date: 20070430

Docket: A-412-06

Citation: 2007 FCA 175

 

CORAM:       LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

                        EVANS J.A.

                        SHARLOW J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

JOSEPH GEORGE ZADOR

Appellant

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on April 30, 2007)

SHARLOW J.A.

[1]               This is an appeal of a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada (2006 TCC 545) dismissing the appellants’ income tax appeal for 2004.

[2]               The issue is whether the Tax Court Judge was correct when he concluded that a moving expense is deductible under subsection 62(1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th supp.) only when it is paid. The relevant parts of subsection 62(1) reads as follows (my emphasis):

62. (1) […] there may be deducted amounts paid by the taxpayer as or on account of moving expenses incurred in the course of moving from the old residence to the new residence […].

62. (1) […] il peut déduire […] les sommes qu’il a payées au titre des frais de déménagement engages pour déménager de son ancienne residence pour venire occuper sa nouvelle residence […]

 

[3]               Mr. Zador argues that a moving expense is deductible when the taxpayer incurs a legal obligation to pay it. The Tax Court Judge did not accept Mr. Zador’s interpretation. He concluded that subsection 62(1) requires that a moving expense be paid before it is eligible for a deduction under that provision. We agree with him. In our view, the words of subsection 62(1) cannot reasonably bear the interpretation proposed by Mr. Zador.

[4]               This appeal will be dismissed with costs.

 

 

“K. Sharlow”

J.A.


 

 

 

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

DOCKET:                                                                              A-412-06

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                              JOSEPH GEORGE ZADOR v. HMQ

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                        Vancouver, British Columbia

 

DATE OF HEARING:                                                          April 30, 2007

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                                     LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

                                                                                                EVANS J.A.

                                                                                                SHARLOW J.A.

 

 

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:                            SHARLOW J.A.

 

 

 

DATED:                                                                                 April 30, 2007

 

APPEARANCES:

 

 

Joseph George Zador                                                               ON HIS OWN BEHALF

 

Sara Fairbridge                                                                         FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

 

 

 

John H. Sims, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.