Sirivar v. The Queen, 2014 DTC 1052 [at at 2925], 2014 TCC 24 (Informal Procedure) -- summary under Section 62

By services, 28 November, 2015

The taxpayer, a CRA employee, relocated from Ottawa to Toronto to take a new position with CRA. Before having a chance to purchase a Toronto home, he was required to return to Ottawa for a 20-week period to work on a large tax appeal. For that period, it was also uncertain which CRA office the taxpayer would end up at. The taxpayer claimed $4975 in resulting room rental costs as a moving expense, which the Minister denied based on the 15-day limit in s. 62(3)(c).

Hogan J found that the words "meals and lodging" did s. 62(3)(c) applied to "room and board" expenses and did not apply to lodgings alone, and hence neither did the 15-day restriction - although, in any event, s. 62(3) is an "includes" list that merely extends the ordinary meaning of "moving expenses" in s. 62(1). The room rental costs were moving expenses, given that (para. 15):

[T]he Appellant's employer prolonged the completion of the Appellant's move to Toronto. ... The Appellant should not be penalized for accommodating the needs of his employer.

Topics and taglines
Tagline
employer's conduct prolonged move
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
338520
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Sirivar v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2014 DTC 1052 [at 2925], 2014 TCC 24 (Informal Procedure) <strong>[employer's conduct prolonged move]</strong>",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}