| December 14, 1990 | |
| Appeals Branch | Business and General |
| Appeals & Referrals Division | Division |
| J.A. Szeszycki | |
| Attention: Ms. J. Yu | (613) 957-2103 |
| 903157 |
SUBJECT: Twyla Hartt v. M.N.R. Adverse Decision - Tax Court of Canada
We are responding to your memorandum of November 1, 1990 requesting our comments on the impact of the above-mentioned adverse decision of the Tax Court of Canada on the interpretation of section 63 of the Act.
We agree with the judge's conclusion in this case that the words "for the purpose of providing ...", in the definition of child care expense in paragraph 63(3)(a) of the Act, are broad enough to include advertising expenses, placement agency fees and similar types of expenses incurred for the purpose of finding a suitable care-giver. Also we feel that transportation expenses incurred to locate, interview or bring a care-giver to Canada would also meet the purpose test referred to above.
21(1)(b) 23
R.J.L. ReadDirector GeneralRulings DirectorateLegislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Branch
c.c. Mr. R. Shultis Mrs. P. McNally Mr. R. D'Aurelio