From: canada.revenueagency@yahoo.com   
      
   Deducting travel costs as a medical expense :CRA SOTW    
      
   A husband’s travel to assist his ailing wife is allowed as a medical expense   
   deduction   
      
   By Patricia Chisholm | November 30, 2012 17:05   
      
   A large percentage of your clients will find themselves, at some point, having   
   to travel to help care for an ill family member. A recent decision from the   
   Tax Court of Canada has ruled that a husband who spent several months   
   travelling 120 kilometres    
   almost every day to help his wife, is entitled to deduct the cost of that   
   travel. The amount claimed was $14,883.   
      
   The decision (Jordan v. The Queen) dealt with a taxpayer in Weyburn,   
   Saskatchewan whose wife suffered a brain aneurysm at the age of 48. She   
   suffered brain damage and had to be moved to a hospital and then long-term   
   care facility in Regina. The husband    
   travelled almost daily to assist in her recovery, taking an extended leave   
   from his job to do so. He eventually went back to work part-time and continued   
   to visit her. His wife, who required extensive therapy, in which the husband   
   participated, was in    
   Regina from March to September, 2010.   
      
   The Income Tax Act (s. 118.2 (2) (h)) provides that medical expenses may be   
   claimed for travel expenses for one person to aid in the recovery of a spouse.   
      
   The Crown argued that the deduction is only available when the person making   
   the claim actually accompanies the patient and the patient is unable to travel   
   alone. However, the court referred to a prior decision to conclude that this   
   is not the case. It    
   also noted that the provision in the ITA is "broadly worded and ambiguous."   
      
   The court also noted that the Crown may have decided to disallow the claim   
   because of the extended time during which the travel took place and the high   
   value of the expenses that were incurred. It also argued that the husband's   
   presence was not necessary    
   in the wife's recovery.   
      
   The court disagreed, holding for the taxpayer and noting: "The evidence in   
   this case leaves no doubt that Ms. Jordan was required to receive medical   
   treatment in Regina for a protracted length of time and that Mr. Jordan's   
   daily presence contributed    
   significantly to her recovery."   
      
       
   -----------------------------------------------------------    
   Miss a Tax Tale Miss a lot!    
   Visit the CRA SOTW Library at http://canada.revenue.agency.angelfire.com    
   ------------------------------------------------------------    
   Alan Baggett – Tax Collector’s Bible -  http://taxcollectorsbible.com/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)