Cases
James v. The Queen, 2003 DTC 5269, 2003 FCA 164
The taxpayer, who had no income from employment or from carrying on business at a new work location from which to deduct moving expenses, was not entitled to deduct moving expenses from his dividend income.
Templeton v. The Queen, 97 DTC 5216 (FCTD)
The taxpayer, who maintained a home office at his principal residence in Penetanguishene although he rented a residence in Toronto as a place to stay while working at a Toronto radio station, was terminated by the radio station and purchased a new residence in Toronto which he also used as his office for work as an author and inventor. His expenses of moving to the new Toronto residence were deductible given that "it is realistic, logical and in context with the reality of Canadian life to understand that a person's residence might very well be the same as his or her work location". (p. 5219).
Giannakopoulos v. The Queen, 95 DTC 5477 (FCA)
In finding that the 40-kilometre distance should be measured on the basis of the shortest normal route to the travelling public rather than in a straight line, Marceau J.A. stated (at p. 5478):
"A realistic measurement of travelling distance is necessary in order to give effect to the purpose of the provision. The straight line method bears no relation to how an employee travels to work."
Mallett v. The Queen, 92 DTC 6537 (FCTD)
A government employee (who was deemed under s. 250(1) to be resident in Canada) was told in the spring of 1985 that she would be transferred from her position in the Canadian embassy in Paris to a position in Ottawa. In August 1985 she married a man whose home was in England and from that time until her move to Ottawa in December 1985, she commuted between Paris and England. In finding that she was not ordinarily resident in England prior to her move to Ottawa, McGillis J. noted that "to the extent that she spent time at the home in England, she only resided there casually until her move to her new home in Ottawa" (p. 6539).
The Queen v. Collin, 90 DTC 6369 (FCTD)
In order to enter into an agreement for the sale of his home, the taxpayer agreed to pay $5,811 to the purchaser's mortgage lender in order to reduce the rate of interest on the purchaser's mortgage from 25% to 17%. Martin J. found that the taxpayer's direct and immediate object in making the payment was to effect the sale and that the payment therefore was properly characterized as a selling cost.
Rath v. The Queen, 82 DTC 6175, [1982] CTC 207 (FCA)
Neither losses sustained when household and other goods were destroyed by a warehouse fire in the course of a move, nor the costs of replacement goods were "amounts paid ... as or on account of moving expenses" within the ordinary meaning of that expression. They also did not qualify under S.62(3)(b).
Storrow v. The Queen, 78 DTC 6551, [1978] CTC 792 (FCTD)
"Only outlays incurred to effect the physical transfer of the taxpayer, his household and their belongings to the new residence are deductible". The natural and ordinary meaning of the expression "moving expenses", "does not include (except as may be specifically delineated in ss.62(3)) such things as the increase in cost of the new accommodation over the old (whether by virtue of sale, lease, or otherwise), the cost of installing household items taken from the old residence to the new, or the cost of replacing or re-fitting household items from the old residence (such as drapes, carpeting, etc.)".
Gold v. The Queen, 77 DTC 5430, [1977] CTC 616 (FCTD)
The deductible expenses of the taxpayer's move from Montreal to Ottawa did not include the living and tuition expenses for the following year of his son who completed his high school studies in Montreal rather than coming to Ottawa to complete his final year. "[T]he words 'moving expenses' mean the expenses incurred in physically moving and in actually changing residence and certain other very specific expenses relating directly to the actual move and reinstallation and do not mean an amount to compensate for incidental disturbances or damages not related to the actual move and reinstallation in the new residence."
See Also
Sirivar v. The Queen, 2014 DTC 1052 [at 2925], 2014 TCC 24
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.
Higgins v. The Queen, 96 DTC 1291 (TCC)
The "shortest normal route" for the taxpayer to take to his new place of employment was by ferry, a distance of under 20 kilometres, even though it may have been occasionally inconvenient for him because of freezing conditions on the Fraser River or the line-ups waiting for the ferry. Accordingly, his moving expenses were not deductible. [From his former residence]
McLay v. MNR, 92 DTC 2260 (TCC)
No portion of the capital loss realized by the taxpayer when he sold his Vancouver home in connection with his relocation to Newfoundland was deductible. "The only connection between this loss and the Appellant's move is the fact that his move forced the realization of a pre-existing loss which had accrued from market conditions" (p. 2266).
However, mortgage interest on the Vancouver home from the time he purchased the replacement residence in Newfoundland to the time of disposition of the Vancouver home was deductible given that such interest was incurred as a direct consequence of his move.
Rennie v. MNR, 90 DTC 1050 (TCC)
In 1981 the taxpayer deducted expenses in moving from the family home in Montreal to a temporary residence in Edmonton and in 1983 he deducted further expenses incurred in connection with moving from Edmonton to Victoria to take up a new teaching position. It was held that he could not deduct in 1984 expenses incurred in connection with moving in 1984 his family's effects from the Montreal home to Victoria. The evidence established that in 1984 the taxpayer was "ordinarily resident" in Victoria, and there was "no authority that holds that a person can be ordinarily resident in two places at the same time."
Bayette v. The Queen, 89 DTC 701, [1989] T.C.J. No. 1001
An individual who changed his job location in December 1981, but commuted 110 kilometres daily until his move in October 1986 "by reasons of poor supply of homes, his lack of equity in his original house, high interest rates ... and intermittent health problems," was entitled to the deduction.
Administrative Policy
5 January 1995 Income Technical News, No. 6
The 40-kilometre distance is to be measured as the shortest normal route available to the travelling public.
22 June 1994 T.I. 941519 (C.T.O. "Delay in Moving after Job Relocation")
Where the taxpayer was required to change work locations on February 1992, listed his house for sale but because of market conditions was unable to sell it until June 1994 with a September 1994 closing date, and during the interim period rented an apartment at the new location while his wife and children remained behind at the former location, it would appear that the leased accommodation was not his ordinary place of residence prior to the time that his family joined him. Accordingly, he would be considered to have moved in 1994 rather than in 1992.
2 December 1993 T.I. 931319 (C.T.O. "Moving Expenses - GST on New Home Purchase")
GST paid on the purchase of a new home is not considered a tax "imposed on the transfer or registration of title" to a new residence as described in s. 62(3)(f) and, therefore, does not qualify as an eligible moving expense. However, GST paid on otherwise eligible moving expenses is deductible as a moving expense.
22 June 1993 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 32, p. 21, ¶2624)
The cost of moving a house with its contents is deductible where such cost is not more than the estimated cost of moving the personal effects separately.
4 March 1992 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 17, p. 23, ¶1780)
Any moving expenses incurred by a doctoral graduate from a foreign university to move to or from Canada in respect of a fellowship to engage in research at a Canadian university for up to two years will not be deductible.
91 CPTJ - Q.23
Re deduction of moving expenses where a student moves outside Canada to attend school.
2 July 1991 T.I. (Tax Window, No. 5, p. 20, ¶1331)
Re deductibility of moving expense incurred by university instructors employed in one city who are granted a leave of absence to pursue studies at a university in another city.
88 C.R. - Q.53
A taxpayer receiving a moving allowance in connection with a temporary move to the United States will not be allowed to deduct moving expenses, notwithstanding his retention of Canadian residency.
Articles
Finley, "Staggered Relocations May Disqualify Moving Expenses", Taxation of Executive Compensation and Retirement, November 1990, p. 358.
Subsection 62(1) - Moving expenses
See Also
Evangélist v. The Queen, 2013 DTC 1095 [at 515], 2013 TCC 62
Lamarre J found that there was nothing in s. 62(1) that required that moving expenses be incurred in the year they are deducted rather than a prior year. Therefore, the taxpayer's expenses for moving his belongings to a friend's house in 2010 gave rise to a deduction in 2012 when he finally found employment.
Subsection 62(3)
Cases
Johnston v. The Queen, 2003 DTC 5295, 2003 FCA 185
When the taxpayer moved to Winnipeg, he received two mortgage loans on his Toronto home to finance the acquisition of a Winnipeg home, and then paid off the loans two months later when he sold the Toronto home. Sharlow J.A. held (at p. 5297) that:
"The definition of 'moving expenses', read in its entirety, indicates that interest on money borrowed to purchase a home in the new work location is not within the definition, even if the loan is secured by a mortgage on a home in the former work location."
See Also
Sirivar v. The Queen, 2014 DTC 1052 [at 2925], 2014 TCC 24
In the course of finding that the taxpayer's nearly $5000 of room rental costs (over 20 weeks) in the course of a move were deductible as moving expenses (see summary under s. 62(1) - "moving expenses"), Hogan J stated (at para. 14):
[T]he appellant's claim is for lodging alone, which is not specifically covered by paragraph 62(3)(c). In my opinion, the provision contemplates a claim for room and board expenses. If Parliament had intended to restrict lodging 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."
Vollmer v. The Queen, 2011 DTC 1139 [at 752], 2011 TCC 174
The taxpayers' legal fees associated with a move were not deductible as part of an eligible relocation, given that they were incurred to defend against a custody motion from his wife.
Renaud v. The Queen, 2010 DTC 1094 [at 2994], 2010 2010 TCC 76
The taxpayer made an eligible relocation to a residence in another town. Rather than sell his old residence, he rented it, which effected a deemed disposition under s. 45(1)(a). However, Campbell J. found at para. 9 that, while "sold" means "disposed of by sale," the effect of 45(1)(a) was a disposition other than by sale. Therefore, the taxpayer was not eligible to include the s. 62(3)(f) amount in his claimed "moving expenses."
Beaudoin v. The Queen, 2005 DTC 282, 2005 TCC 94
The taxpayer's employer moved locations in 1997, but the taxpayer maintained his home in the first location until the fall of 2003, when he moved to the new location. Various expenses incurred in this move wee eligible for the deduction.
Jaggers v. The Queen, 97 DTC 1317 (TCC)
The taxpayer was able to deduct the costs associated with his move to a new residence and those associated with the sale of his former residence notwithstanding that the sale of his former residence did not occur until approximately two years after the time of his move: he was uncertain for some time as to whether he would keep his new job, and for reasons of commercial morality he did not immediately evict the tenants who occupied his former residence when he finally felt comfortable enough to sell his former residence.
Bowman TCJ., in finding that the Act does not require that the moving costs be incurred in the year of the move, noted that the Dale case established "that subsequent events can affect the calculation of income in a preceding year" (p. 1320).
Graham v. The Queen, 97 DTC 1074 (TCC)
The taxpayer, who was transferred by his employer (the Federal Government) from Ottawa to Victoria in November 1992, moved immediately to Victoria to stay in rented premises while leaving his wife and child in their Ottawa house until it was sold approximately six months' later. Insurance, taxes, mortgage interest and hydro incurred during that period in respect of the Ottawa house were "selling costs" and, accordingly, qualified for deduction as moving expenses.
Administrative Policy
14 August 2014 T.I. 2014-0527271E5 - Moving expenses
CRA… provides spouses and common-law partners with some flexibility in claiming moving expenses. The CRA allows the spouses or common-law partners to decide how the deduction will be claimed (e.g., 100% by one spouse, 50/50) provided the requirements of section 62 of the Act have otherwise been met. In other words, a taxpayer may deduct lease cancellation costs where his or her spouse was the lessee, provided the costs otherwise qualify. …
"Costs of cancelling the lease" includes additional penalties or administrative fees charged by a landlord….[and] may include rental payments (e.g., forfeiture of last month deposit). However, where the rental unit is occupied by the taxpayer or members of his or her household during the period for which the rent is paid, it is the CRA's view that the rental payments would not be considered "costs of cancelling a lease"… .
26 June 1995 Memorandum 950955 (C.T.O. "Moving Expenses")
"Mortgage interest costs on the old residence are neither a selling cost nor a moving expense. If the interest cost of continuing to hold the old home until an acceptable price for it can be obtained or for some other reason represents a cost arising from 'keeping' the old home, not selling it."
26 June 1995 Memorandum 950955 (C.T.O. "Moving Expenses")
Mortgage interest expenses on the former residence do not qualify as a selling cost or moving expense notwithstanding the decision in McLay v. MNR, 92 DTC 2260.