June 16, 2014
MEALS AND LODGING
Federal
[A] claim ... for lodging alone ... is not specifically covered by paragraph 63(2)(c) [of the Income Tax Act]. In my opinion, [63(2)(c)] contemplates a claim for room and board expenses. If Parliament had intended to restrict lodging expenses to 15 days, it would have done so explicitly. Paragraph 62(3)(c) is meant to include things that might not otherwise be considered “moving expenses”.
Sirivar v. R. | (westlaw Canada)
2014 CarswellNat 97 at para. 14| (Westlaw Canada)
Robert J. Hogan J.
The Minister's position is that none of the Appellants is entitled to any deduction under that provision [of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), s. 8(1)(g)], because the duties of their employment did not require them to make disbursements for “meals and lodging”, but only for meals. Counsel for the Respondent says that the word “and” in this context is conjunctive. Counsel for the Appellants says that it is disjunctive; disbursements for either meals or lodgings may be deducted.
. . . . .
The word “and” in its plain meaning is clearly conjunctive. In cases of ambiguity it has been interpreted otherwise, in order to achieve the object of the legislation ... There is no ambiguity in the present case, and the statute must be applied as it was written.
For the present cases the legislative intent is clear. The deduction for meals is not intended to be available to workers who return to their homes each night as a matter of course.
Crawford v. R. | (westlaw Canada)
2002 CarswellNat 5096 at para. 2, 11, 12 | (Westlaw Canada)
Bowie T.C.J.
© Copyright Westlaw Canada, Thomson Reuters Canada Limited. All rights reserved.