Date: 20060220

Docket: A-146-05

Citation: 2006 FCA 79

CORAM:       ROTHSTEIN J.A.

                        SHARLOW J.A.                    

                        MALONE J.A.

BETWEEN:

CLAUDE DIONNE

Appellant

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on February 20, 2006.

Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on February 20, 2006.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:                                              SHARLOW J.A.

Date: 20060220

Docket: A-146-05

Citation: 2006 FCA 79

CORAM:       ROTHSTEIN J.A.

                        SHARLOW J.A.                    

                        MALONE J.A.

BETWEEN:

CLAUDE DIONNE

Appellant

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on February 20, 2006)

SHARLOW J.A.

[1]                Mr. Dionne appealed his assessment for 2000, 2001 and 2002, raising three issues: the deductibility of expenses under paragraphs 8(1)(h) and (h.1) of the Income Tax Act, the deductibility of legal expenses under paragraph 8(1)(b), and the deductibility of certain incidental expenses. In an oral judgment, the Tax Court Judge allowed Mr. Dionne's appeal only with respect to part of his legal expenses (2005 TCC 354).

[2]                We see no error in the Tax Court decision in relation to legal expenses and incidental expenses.

[3]                However, with respect to paragraphs 8(1)(h) and (h.1), counsel for the Crown, to her credit, referred us to another Tax Court decision, Champaigne v. Canada, 2006 TCC 74, which counsel concedes involves facts that are not distinguishable from the facts of this case.

[4]                The Champaigne case adopts an interpretation of paragraphs 8(1)(h) and (h.1) that would entitle Mr. Dionne to succeed in this appeal with respect to his claims under those provisions. Counsel was unable to persuade us that Champaigne incorrectly decided.

[5]                We are all of the view that this appeal should be allowed in part, and the assessments should be returned to the Minister for reassessment on the basis that Mr. Dionne was eligible to claim hisexpenses under paragraphs 8(1)(h) and (h.1).

[6]                We have noted an issue as to whether Mr. Dionne's claim for meals should be reduced by subsection 8(4). However, as the amounts involved are relatively minor, we are all of the view that his claim for meals should be accepted as filed.

[7]                Mr. Dionne is entitled to his costs of this appeal in the amount of $600.

"K. Sharlow"

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                           A-146-05

STYLE OF CAUSE:                           CLAUDE DIONNE

Appellant

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                                                                Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                     TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                      FEBRUARY 20, 2006

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT BY:                        (ROTHSTEIN, SHARLOW, MALONE JJ.A.)           

DELIVERED FROM THE

BENCH BY:                                        SHARLOW J.A.

APPEARANCES:

Claude Dionne	FOR THE APPELLANT, ON HIS OWN BEHALF
Margaret J. Nott / Ms. Kandia Aird	FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Claude Dionne Barrie, Ontario	FOR THE APPELLANT, ON HIS OWN BEHALF
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario	FOR THE RESPONDENT