[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
2001-15(IT)I
BETWEEN:
MONIQUE LAJEUNESSE-LEBEL,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on November 29, 2001, at Québec, Quebec, by
the Honourable Judge Louise Lamarre Proulx
Appearances
For the Appellant: The Appellant herself
Counsel for the Respondent: Dany Leduc
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 1999 taxation year is dismissed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 24th day of January 2002.
|
"Louise Lamarre Proulx" |
J.T.C.C.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Date: 20020124
Docket: 2001-15(IT)I
BETWEEN:
MONIQUE LAJEUNESSE-LEBEL,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Lamarre Proulx, J.T.C.C.
[1] This is an appeal under the informal procedure for the 1999 taxation year. The issue is whether, for the purposes of the medical expense tax credit, the appellant can claim natural medications representing in total $4,398 as "medical expenses" of the type described in paragraph 118.2(2)(n) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act").
[2] The facts on which the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") relied in making the reassessment are set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal (the "Reply") as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
(4) On December 11, 2000, the Minister increased the appellant's allowable medical expenses by $920 by issuing a reassessment for the 1999 taxation year.
(5) In making the reassessment in issue, the Minister made, in particular, the following assumptions of fact:
(a) the appellant disbursed the sum of $5,318 in expenses for naturopathic care;
(b) that amount of $5,318 included $920 for naturopathic consultation and $4,398 for so-called natural medications;
(c) the so-called natural medications were not purchased by the appellant as prescribed by a medical practitioner or dentist, or recorded by a pharmacist.
[3] The grounds for appeal as described in the notice of appeal are as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
1- a polymyalgia rheumatica was diagnosed in January 1998 (see letter from my physician, Dr. Boisselle);
2- injections of corticosteroids and anti-inflammatories were suggested and administered to me, but produced no curative or analgesic effect, although they caused serious negative side effects and would have caused other long-term side effects (see appended leaflet from the Arthritis Society);
3- in view of that situation, I turned to alternative treatments such as acupuncture, homeopathy and, lastly, naturopathy. After two years of naturopathic treatment, I now feel very good and my quality of life is beyond comparison.
This of course has come at an astronomical cost, although I have no regrets. However, I would appreciate a little encouragement from the federal government, which proclaims that every citizen is entitled to health service that is adequate to ensure his or her well-being.
Why alternative medicines?
- to enjoy a good quality of life and independence;
- to avoid physical and psychological problems often caused by the chemical drugs prescribed by traditional medicine (among others, those related to cortisone: see appended leaflet from the Arthritis Society);
- to take charge of my life by going to see a naturopath.
For these reasons, I ask that natural medications, like chemical drugs, qualify as allowable medical expenses where the amount involved is high in relation to salary.
[4] The appellant testified, filing as Exhibit A-1 a letter dated November 7, 2000, from her attending physician, Dr. Diane Boisselle. That letter reads as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
To whom it may concern,
The patient was diagnosed with a polymyalgia rheumatica in January 1998. She has received corticosteroid injections and NSAIDs.
As a result of persistent side effects from the drugs, Ms. Lajeunesse turned to alternative medicines. She has responded very well to treatment and has been in biological remission since the end of 1998. She is still receiving naturopathic monitoring.
[5] As Exhibit A-2, the appellant filed a document from the Arthritis Society on corticosteroids, describing the use of those drugs and their possible side effects.
[6] The appellant explained that, in her case, corticosteroids mainly produced side effects, without having the desired beneficial effects. That was when she turned to naturopathy.
[7] Interpretation Bulletin IT-519R2, entitled "Medical Expense and Disability Tax Credits and Attendant Care Expense Deduction", describes in paragraph 61 the categories of drugs the cost of which may qualify as medical expenses:
Drugs, medicaments and other preparations or substances
61. For purposes of calculating the medical expense tax credit, there are two categories of drugs, medicaments or other preparations or substances (other than those included in the account of a medical practitioner (see 3 above) or hospital) the cost of which may qualify as medical expenses :
(a) the substances, mentioned in paragraph 118.2(2)(k) (insulin, oxygen and, for pernicious anaemia, liver extract and vitamin B12) which, for purposes of this paragraph, a medical practitioner must have prescribed, but which a pharmacy or any other type of store may sell without a written prescription; and
(b) the drugs (and other items), referred to in paragraph 118.2(2)(n), which a medical practitioner or dentist must have prescribed, and which must be purchased from a pharmacist who has recorded the prescription in a prescription record.
[8] Paragraphs 118.2(2)(a) and (n) of the Act read as follows:
(2) Medical expenses - For the purposes of subsection (1), a medical expense of an individual is an amount paid:
(a) to a medical practitioner, dentist or nurse or a public or licensed private hospital in respect of medical or dental services provided to a person (in this subsection referred to as the "patient") who is the individual, the individual's spouse or common-law partner or a dependant of the individual (within the meaning assigned by subsection 118(6)) in the taxation year in which the expense was incurred;
. . .
(n) for drugs, medicaments or other preparations or substances (other than those described in paragraph (k)) manufactured, sold or represented for use in the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of a disease, disorder, abnormal physical state, or the symptoms thereof or in restoring, correcting or modifying an organic function, purchased for use by the patient as prescribed by a medical practitioner or dentist and as recorded by a pharmacist;
[Emphasis added.]
[9] Counsel for the respondent referred to this Court's decisions in Mongillo v. Canada, [1994] T.C.J. No. 831 (Q.L.), and Williams v. Canada, [1997] T.C.J. No. 1346 (Q.L.). I cite paragraph 13 from the latter decision:
13 The costs incurred for the purchase of vitamin and mineral supplements and other natural foods are not medical expenses. Paragraph 118.2(2)(n) of the Act provides that only expenses incurred for drugs, medicaments and other preparations or substances purchased for use by the patient as prescribed by a medical practitioner and as recorded by a pharmacist can be so claimed. With respect to these expenses, none of the purchases were recorded by a pharmacist. See for example Mongillo v. The Queen, 95 D.T.C. 199. . . .
[10] Counsel for the respondent explained to the Court that the expenses relating to a naturopath were allowed under paragraph 118.2(2)(a) of the Act. He explained in writing that, [translation] "although the terms used by Parliament in paragraph 118.2(2)(a) refer specifically to amounts paid to 'a medical practitioner, dentist or nurse or a public or licensed private hospital . . .', the Minister is of the opinion that other health professionals, depending on the province or the jurisdiction concerned, may meet the same requirements. Accordingly, the Minister considers that the expenses incurred for naturopaths qualify, even though naturopaths are not physicians, where those expenses are paid for medical services, to the extent that the expenses were incurred for diagnostic, therapeutic or rehabilitation services."
[11] The appellant stated that, since the Minister had previously allowed her expenses for consulting a naturopath, she did not understand why the so-called natural medications recommended by that same naturopath did not qualify as tax deductible medical expenses.
Conclusion
[12] The meaning given to "drugs, medicaments or other preparations or substances" in paragraph 118.2(2)(n) of the Act requires that two essential conditions be met: that they be purchased as prescribed by a medical practitioner and as recorded by a pharmacist. In the instant case, there is no doubt, and it was admitted by the parties, that the medicaments or preparations in question here were not recorded by a pharmacist in his register at the time of their purchase.
[13] The appeal must accordingly be dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 24th day of January 2002.
|
"Louise Lamarre Proulx" |
J.T.C.C.