The taxpayer, who was a security analyst for a brokerage firm, was responsible for employment expenses which he incurred in performing his duties including remuneration paid to his sales assistant. Miller J. found that the salary of the assistant was "expended" by the taxpayer notwithstanding that the assistant received payment of such salary from the brokerage firm with such payment then becoming owing by the taxpayer to the brokerage firm, and went on to find that payment of the assistant's salary was required by the taxpayer's contract of employment notwithstanding the absence of an explicit provision to this effect. Miller J. stated (at p. 3554):
"... Paragraph 8(1)(i) does not stipulate that an assistant must be 'required by the contract of employment', but that the payment of salary to an assistant was required by the contract of employment."