Ruling upholds disallowance of moving expenses to compute employment income for tax purposes
The Tax Court of Canada has dismissed an appeal of a decision disallowing moving expenses in computing employment income for the 2022 taxation year upon finding that the taxpayer moved from Vancouver to Salt Spring Island primarily for personal reasons.
In Angus v. The King, 2025 TCC 121, the appellant worked as a transportation coordinator for the film industry for over three decades. He furnished services through a company of which he was the sole shareholder, director, and employee.
In his job, the appellant hired drivers, checked filming locations, and had to be ready to visit a location in case of altered plans or labour issues. Production companies covered his transportation and accommodation costs wherever they asked him to go, regardless of his home base.
The appellant moved from Vancouver to Salt Spring Island in 2021. This case arose after the minister of national revenue disallowed moving expenses of $134,000 in computing the appellant’s employment income for his 2022 taxation year.
The appellant alleged that he moved primarily to reside closer to Vancouver Island, a place which he expected would lead to more work opportunities from production companies in 2021, considering the COVID-19 pandemic’s impacts on the industry.
Disallowance affirmed
The Tax Court of Canada upheld the revenue minister’s disallowance. On a balance of probabilities, the court determined that the appellant moved from Vancouver to Salt Spring Island primarily for personal reasons.
The court saw no eligible relocation for which the appellant could claim a deduction for moving expenses under s. 62(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1985.
The court cited Khani v The King, 2025 TCC 26, which provided that Parliament did not intend to offer a deduction if the claimant moved primarily for personal reasons.
In reaching its conclusion, the court referred to the appellant’s admissions in an email message to his appeal agent, received by Crown counsel.
In the message, the appellant said two arson attempts close to his Vancouver home, which were “very upsetting” to his partner, were the primary reason for his relocation. A secondary reason was that the shooting for one of his films took place on Vancouver Island.
The court accepted that the email message’s contents were hearsay and thus presumptively inadmissible. However, the court admitted the message into evidence for the truth of its contents under the party admission exception to the rule against hearsay.
Lastly, the court noted that the appellant confirmed during cross-examination that the primary reason for the relocation was personal, given that he had moved at his partner’s behest.
