[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
1999-3505(IT)I
BETWEEN:
CLAUDE H. SAUVAGEAU,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on July 14, 2000, at Sherbrooke, Quebec, by
the Honourable Judge Pierre Archambault
Appearances
For the Appellant: The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent: Anne-Marie Desgens
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 1997 taxation year is dismissed, without costs.
Signed at Magog, Quebec, this 20th day of July 2000.
|
"Pierre Archambault" |
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 30th day of September 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Date: 20010123
Docket: 1999-3505(IT)I
BETWEEN:
CLAUDE H. SAUVAGEAU,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Archambault, J.T.C.C.
[1] Claude Sauvageau appealed from an assessment made by the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) for the 1997 taxation year. The Minister disallowed the deduction in the amount of $11,941 that Mr. Sauvageau made in computing his income.
[2] He also disallowed the deduction of part of the contribution made by Mr. Sauvageau to his Registered Retirement Savings Plan. The deduction claimed was $2,890 whereas the Minister allowed only $927. During the hearing, Mr. Sauvageau acknowledged that the deduction of this amount had been allowed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act (the Act) and that his objection was aimed more at having the Act amended. In fact, it is quite clear that this Court has no power to amend the Act; only the Parliament of Canada can do that.
[3] There remains the question of the deduction of $11,941. At the beginning of the hearing, Mr. Sauvageau made several admissions¾he admitted, inter alia, subparagraphs 7(b), (c) and (f) of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal. The evidence made it possible to confirm the fact that Mr. Sauvageau held the position of inspector with the Commission de la construction du Québec (CCQ) until May 4, 1997, and that his duties lead him to travel constantly between one construction site and another. Beginning on May 5, 1997, his duties changed: he was demoted and assigned to the duties of an operations technician, duties that he performed in the Montreal regional office.
[4] Because of this new assignment, Mr. Sauvageau lost all right to the travel and meal allowances that he had received when performing his duties as an inspector.
[5] As an operations technician, Mr. Sauvageau was no longer required to perform his duties anywhere but at his employer's place of business. The evidence revealed that the travelling Mr. Sauvageau did was essentially restricted to commuting between his place of residence in Knowlton and the Montréal regional office, located at the intersection of Crémazie Boulevard and Christophe-Colomb Avenue.
[6] Mr. Sauvageau explained during his testimony that he had deducted the amount of $11,941, representing the sum of the two amounts that he would have received if he had performed the duties of an inspector and had regularly visited the various construction sites. The first amount, $1,617, represents the meal allowance ($12.35 per day) to which he was entitled for 131 days of work. The second, $10,324, represents the allowance ($0.34 per kilometre) that he would have received if he had driven 30,365 kilometres in his car.
[7] Mr. Sauvageau filed a grievance against his employer challenging the demotion that he had been given on May 5, 1997. The grievance has not yet been settled and new hearing sessions are planned in the months to come.
Analysis
[8] When the evidence as a whole is considered, it is clear that the amount deducted by Mr. Sauvageau represents not the expenses he incurred but rather a "failure to earn", that is, the amount that he would have received if his duties had been those of an inspector and he had visited the various construction sites under the CCQ's jurisdiction.
[9] Subsection 8(2) of the Act explicitly provides that only amounts provided for in section 8 are deductible in computing income from employment. Mr. Sauvageau, however, was unable to refer to any explicit provision of the Act (whether it be one of the paragraphs of section 8 or another section) that might allow him to deduct such a "failure to earn".
[10] Moreover, even if the amount of $11,941 represented the travel expenses that Mr. Sauvageau had to incur for commuting between his residence and his workplace, that is, the Montréal regional office, and the expenses for meals taken near this workplace, such expenses clearly constituted personal expenses and not expenses incurred "in the performance of the duties of his employment" (see, inter alia, paragraph 8(1)(h) of the Act).Regrettably for Mr. Sauvageau, the assessment of the Minister is well founded and his appeal in respect of the 1997 taxation year must be dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 23d day of January 2001.
|
"Pierre Archambault" |
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 30th day of September 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor