This is an unusual case. First, the taxpayer appealing was a CRA Appeals officer at the time of the appeal. (He retired in March 2012). One rarely sees that. After all, how many people are willing to sue their employer?
Second, Justice Hogan gives an odd reading of the tax rule on deductions for moving expenses. The Income Tax Act allows you to deduct some of your moving expenses if you move more than 40 kilometres to be employed or carry on business. (After all, you're earning income for us; we should share your costs of being able to earn it.)
There are restrictions on deductions for these moving expenses. One is this in s. 62(3)(c): We limit your expenses for room and board during the move to 15 days. This is done through the definition of "moving expenses" which "includes":
"(c) the cost to the taxpayer of meals and lodging near the old residence or the new residence for the taxpayer and members of the taxpayer's household for a period not exceeding 15 days".
Justice Hogan decided that this rule only applies if you claim both meals and lodging. But the limit, he said, does not apply if you claim only one or the other:
" I note that paragraph 63(2)(c) refers to the deduction of “the cost . . . of meals and lodging” for temporary accommodations. In the instant case, the Appellant’s claim is for lodging alone, which is not specifically covered by paragraph 63(2)(c). In my opinion, the provision 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”."
Though this reading seems very odd, one thing that bothered Justice Hogan was the fact that " the Appellant’s employer [CRA] prolonged the completion of the Appellant’s move to Toronto." (Para. 15.)
See Sirivar v. The Queen, (2014 TCC Hogan)