Court docket sides with CRA on journey allowance case

Article content material

For those who’re required to make use of your individual car for work, maybe to go to shoppers or for different work causes, most employers will reimburse you based mostly on a per-kilometre foundation and, offered the reimbursement is affordable, it needn’t be included in your revenue for tax functions.

However a latest case reveals what can occur when an employer offers its staff with an allowance that’s not fully based mostly on the precise kilometres the worker has pushed.

Article content material

Article content material

Earlier than delving into this newest employment expense case, let’s overview the final guidelines for deducting car bills. For those who’re an worker who wants to make use of your automotive for work, it’s essential to meet sure situations to be able to deduct a few of your car bills in your tax return.

CRA situations

First, it’s essential to usually be required to work away out of your employer’s place of work or somewhere else. Second, underneath your contract of employment, you have to be required to pay your individual car bills, and this have to be licensed by your employer on a signed copy of CRA Type T2200, Declaration of Situations of Employment.

Lastly, it’s essential to not be the recipient of a “non-taxable” allowance for motorized vehicle bills. An allowance is taken into account to be non-taxable when it’s solely based mostly on a “cheap” per-kilometre charge. For 2023, the Canada Income Company considers an inexpensive charge to be 68 cents per kilometre for the primary 5,000 kilometres pushed, and 62 cents/km after that. Within the territories, the speed is 4 cents/km greater.

In case your employer reimburses you, however you’re feeling the quantity was not cheap to cowl the precise working prices of your car, you may deduct the employment portion of your car working bills offered you embody the employer car allowance you acquired in your revenue.

Article content material

Article content material

Journey bills taxable?

This most up-to-date case concerned a Kelowna, B.C. taxpayer who has labored as a boilermaker for greater than 30 years. The phrases of his employment are ruled by a collective settlement between his union and the Boilermaker Contractors’ Affiliation of British Columbia, an umbrella affiliation of member corporations who collectively are the taxpayer’s “employer.”

The taxpayer mentioned his union corridor usually calls him at his house to let him know what and the place his subsequent job is, and most of his jobs require him to drive from Kelowna to different places. Within the years underneath overview, the taxpayer travelled to jobs in varied components of B.C., equivalent to Port Alice, Fort Nelson, Path, Kamloops, Castlegar, Quesnel and Crofton, in addition to Edmonton, amongst different places.

The problem within the case was whether or not the journey allowances acquired by the taxpayer of $4,006 in 2014 and $6,590 in 2015 have been taxable, and whether or not any quantity of his motorized vehicle bills was deductible from his employment revenue in these years.

The problem arose as a result of in 2014 and 2015, the collective settlement modified the best way journey allowances have been calculated and paid to staff. The method for reimbursing staff for journey was streamlined by eliminating the necessity for receipts and utilizing a single location as a typical start line for calculating the per-kilometre reimbursement for all work-related journeys. The modifications additionally ended up affecting the staff’ tax therapy.

Article content material

Within the earlier collective settlement, the taxpayer’s employer paid him his hourly charge for journey time, plus full airfare and transportation prices to his lodge.  Beneath the brand new collective settlement, which ruled the tax years underneath overview, the employer reimbursed the taxpayer to be used of his motorized vehicle by paying a journey allowance calculated utilizing the CRA’s annual per-kilometre car charge, measured utilizing Burnaby Metropolis Corridor as a typical beginning place for all employees, no matter whether or not an individual truly set out from there (which the taxpayer usually didn’t). There was no extra fee or reimbursement for journey time or bills incurred, topic to particular exceptions for bills equivalent to ferries, tolls, taxis and airfare.

The taxpayer testified he didn’t should submit receipts for journey underneath this regime, and would robotically obtain the allowance if he was dispatched to an out-of-town worksite. He mentioned this new methodology of calculating the allowance typically paid him lower than it truly price him to journey, and typically it paid him extra, so it “possible averaged out” on the finish of the yr. He additionally recalled that underneath the earlier collective settlement, his journey reimbursements have been by no means topic to tax.

Article content material

Through the CRA audit, the taxpayer offered copies of varieties T2200 for 2014 and 2015, dutifully signed by one of many corporations he did a major quantity of labor for in these years. On the shape, the employer confirmed the taxpayer was required to pay bills for which he didn’t obtain an allowance or reimbursement and confirmed it did pay the journey allowances underneath overview by the CRA.

The choose reviewed the information and the laws. Put merely, the laws states that an allowance for motorized vehicle bills have to be “wholly cheap” to be able to be excluded from employment revenue. Allowances which are unreasonable have to be included in revenue of their entirety, because the taxpayer has no discretion to carve out an inexpensive portion from the remainder. In consequence, if a automotive allowance is taken into account unreasonable and should subsequently be included within the taxpayer’s revenue, the taxpayer can deduct their precise motorized vehicle bills from their revenue.

Article content material

The choose dominated that since Burnaby Metropolis Corridor is “an arbitrary start line,” the allowance was not solely based mostly on the variety of kilometres pushed by the taxpayer, and was subsequently not cheap and wanted to be included in revenue.

As for the attainable deduction of the taxpayer’s precise motorized vehicle bills, this matter was left unclear. Because the collective settlement permits the taxpayer (and different boilermakers) to stay and base themselves in or outdoors B.C.’s Decrease Mainland, the choose queried whether or not journey from one’s house to the out-of-town places is private versus work-related.

Nonetheless, with out the taxpayer offering his precise bills, the choose was not keen to permit the taxpayer to easily deduct bills equal to the quantity of the taxable allowances.

A most unlucky consequence for the taxpayer.

Jamie Golombek, CPA, CA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Property Planning with CIBC Personal Wealth in Toronto. Jamie.Golombek@cibc.com.

_____________________________________________________________

For those who favored this story, join extra within the FP Investor publication.

_____________________________________________________________

Article content material