CRA denies taxpayer’s prices of attending to work, however decide disagrees

Article content material

Should you’re an worker who incurs sure bills for the aim of employment that aren’t reimbursed by your organization, you might be entitled to deduct these bills for tax functions. However the guidelines get a bit difficult on the subject of non-reimbursed journey, particularly, the price of attending to work.

Article content material

In some conditions, the courts have discovered that journey from an worker’s dwelling to numerous work websites is taken into account to be “within the efficiency of a service for an employer,” and so unreimbursed journey bills incurred by the worker to journey between their dwelling to numerous work websites is tax deductible.

Article content material

In different eventualities, nonetheless, the courts have come to a unique conclusion, discovering that journey from an worker’s dwelling to a piece web site is “inherently private” except it may be proven that some duties are being carried out by the worker throughout these travels, comparable to transporting provides for an employer.

A current case, determined in October 2022, walks us by way of a complete authorized evaluation of when non-reimbursed employment journey — particularly, the price of attending to work — could also be tax deductible.

Article content material

The case concerned an Ontario worker who deducted employment bills associated to lodging, meals and leisure, and motorcar bills for the 2017 and 2019 tax years. In 2017, he claimed employment bills of $23,599; in 2019, his bills had been $10,791.

The taxpayer is an industrial engineer who works for the Canadian division of a multinational. The corporate’s Canadian workplace and headquarters is in Ontario, which is the place the taxpayer’s common place of employment was.

In 2017, the duties of the taxpayer’s employment modified after he was requested by his employer to help a sister firm in the US. To do that, he took on the function of senior director of producing for the U.S. firm, which he did from August 2017 till April 2019.

Article content material

The taxpayer was required to spend two to a few weeks every month at this firm’s workplace in Massachusetts, which was an eight-hour drive from his dwelling. He additionally continued to work for the Canadian division at his common place of employment in Ontario when he was not working on the U.S. firm,

In July 2017, previous to taking up this new function, the taxpayer signed an addendum to his employment contract that said he was accountable for prices associated to meals, beverage, leisure and journey to the U.S. work location. In return, he can be given an extra $100,000 in wage.

The taxpayer needed to receive a brief work visa to work within the U.S. and the taxpayer testified in courtroom that his help with the U.S. operations was at all times supposed to be short-term. In consequence, the taxpayer incurred important lodging, meals and different journey bills. Neither the Canadian division nor the U.S. firm reimbursed him for any of those bills.

Article content material

The Canada Income Company disallowed his travel-related employment bills, saying the taxpayer had two common locations of labor throughout these 19 months: the Ontario location and the Massachusetts location. In consequence, the CRA argued, the taxpayer was not entitled to assert his lodging, meals, beverage and vehicle bills associated to travelling to the U.S. location, as a result of permitting him to deduct these bills “would quantity to permitting the (taxpayer) to deduct private bills.”

The decide turned to the Earnings Tax Act and the rule governing employment-related journey. Beneath the act, an worker can declare a deduction if, amongst different necessities, the worker is “ordinarily required” to work away from the “employer’s place of work or in other places.” The definitions of employer, ordinarily, required and “employer’s place of work or in other places” are vital to the willpower.

Article content material

Who’s the employer? On this case, the decide discovered it was clear the employer was the Canadian firm, which at all times paid the taxpayer’s wage. The taxpayer’s employment contract was with the Canadian firm, not the U.S. firm.

What does ordinarily imply? Prior case legislation has discovered that ordinarily is a synonym for usually, as a matter of normal incidence, generally and normally. For the reason that taxpayer was ordinarily required to hold on his duties, as set out within the addendum to his employment contract on the Massachusetts location, this was clearly away from the taxpayer’s place of employment, being the Ontario location.

Article content material

What does required imply? The taxpayer’s contract clearly required him to carry out particular employment duties for the U.S. firm, and his contract was clear that he was accountable for his personal journey to Massachusetts to carry out these employment duties.

What does “employer’s place of work” imply? The decide discovered that regardless of the 19 months the taxpayer spent travelling backwards and forwards to the U.S. location, the taxpayer’s place of work was clearly on the firm’s Canadian headquarters in Ontario. In consequence, his journey to Massachusetts was correctly thought of to be journey “away from his employer’s place of work.”

Lastly, had been the journey bills incurred in the midst of workplace or employment? The decide concluded the taxpayer was offering a service to his employer in his eight-hour drive to the Massachusetts location, due to this fact he was travelling in the midst of his employment. In spite of everything, it was particularly said in his amended employment contract that he was required to journey to the U.S., so the taxpayer “was fulfilling an employment obligation.”

Article content material

The decide allowed the taxpayer’s appeals, discovering he was required from August 2017 to April 2019 to hold on his duties of employment away from his regular place of work in Canada, and, due to this fact, met the Earnings Tax Act standards to deduct his travel-related employment bills in 2017 and 2019.

Jamie Golombek, CPA, CA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Property Planning with CIBC Personal Wealth in Toronto. [email protected]

_____________________________________________________________

Should you favored this story, join extra within the FP Investor publication.

_____________________________________________________________