TO: APPEALS BRANCH APPEALS & REFERRALS DIVISION
FROM: SPECIALTY RULINGS DIRECTORATE Mary Evans 957-2133
ATTENTION Mr. W.A. Fulton
RE: Garry Hoedel Adverse Decision of the Federal Court of Appeal Expiry Date: December 22, 1986
We have reviewed the subject adverse decision and it is our view that leave to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada should not be sought for the reasons outlined by XXXX in his letter dated November 7, 1986. This view, however, does not alter our position that expenses incurred in travelling between the workplace and the home are personal expenses of an employee even though tools or work-related objects are transported during those trips. The Department, therefore, will continue to rely on the decisions in Luks v. MNR ( 58 DTC 1194) and Diemert v. MNR ( 76 DTC 6187) in situations other than the case at hand.
In the opinion dated October 28, 1984, given by Non-Corporate Rulings, a copy of which is attached, we considered that the expenses incurred in taking the dog for training and exercise might meet the requirements of paragraph 8(1)(h) of the Act if the taxable allowance of $1.50 per day for the use of the personal vehicle to transport the dog was inadequate for that purpose. It is therefore mainly the expenses incurred by the police officer in transporting the dog between the police station and his home that remain of concern where such expenses are not increased by his having to transport the dog. It is our opinion, however, that the facts of this case, i.e., the necessity for the continuing process of socializing the dog, may be distinct enough to allow the Department to maintain its position that expenses incurred in travelling between the workplace and the home are personal expenses.
Your adverse decision file is returned herewith.
Director General Specialty Rulings Directorate Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Branch
Enclosures