Woman can claim $17,500 tax deduction for winter in Thailand, court in Canada rules

[webfact]

Woman can claim $17,500 tax deduction for winter in Thailand, court rules
By: Sheryl Smolkin

Tax court has decided for second year a Thunder Bay woman suffering from chronic pain can deduct cost of winter in Thailand, Indonesia

TORONTO: -- For the second year in a row a court has decided that a Thunder Bay woman suffering from chronic pain can deduct the cost of spending the winter in a hot climate.

In the latest decision, the Tax Court of Canada has overturned a Canada Revenue Agency ruling, allowing Trudy Tallon to claim a medical expense tax credit of almost $17,500 for her winter spent in Thailand and Indonesia in 2009. These expenses included flights, accommodation and meals for her and her husband.

Tallon was successful in a previous appeal when the Tax Court permitted her to deduct similar expenses of $22,510 incurred in 2008.

This decision shows that the courts are frequently more sympathetic to taxpayers than the CRA and want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Therefore if a claim for a tax credit or tax deduction is turned down, it may be worth it to appeal the decision.

In 2009, Tallon and her husband David Bullough wanted to spend the winter in the Dominican Republic, but they discovered the weather was not consistently hot enough to relieve her pain. So between January and May 2009, they spent time in Thailand until their visa ran out and then in Indonesia.

Full story: http://www.thestar.com/business/personal_finance/2014/07/29/woman_can_claim_17500_tax_deduction_for_winter_in_thailand_court_rules.html

-- Toronto Star 2014-07-30

[Bulldozer Dawn]

Hmm...where is that medical article I read about the therapeutic benefits of ejaculation

[terryp]

how does she get the visa ..for non imm o you need a medical cert showing NO serious health issues?...as they are here for medical reasons they are not genuine tourists ?

Edited July 30, 2014 by terryp

[96tehtarp]

How do Canadian taxpayers feel about this?

[lopburi3]

Remember this is a tax deduction rather than a refund if I am reading correctly - only the tax does not have to be paid as would be the case for business travel expense.  Obviously worthwhile but not a free vacation as it might appear in quick read.

[Scott]

Hmm...where is that medical article I read about the therapeutic benefits of ejaculation

 

You can do that at home.

[ezflip]

Remember this is a tax deduction rather than a refund if I am reading correctly - only the tax does not have to be paid as would be the case for business travel expense.  Obviously worthwhile but not a free vacation as it might appear in quick read.

 

Correct, a tax deduction NOT a tax refund. 2 separate things.

 

But it does prove a point that my fellow Canadians believe in. Canada is just way too cold and for too much a long time. I've never enjoyed going from +30°C in the summer to -30°C in winter.

[Bulldozer Dawn]

 

Hmm...where is that medical article I read about the therapeutic benefits of ejaculation

 

You can do that at home.

 

 

Yes.  But here in Thailand I can minimise my medical expenses...

Edited July 30, 2014 by Bulldozer Dawn

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

 

Remember this is a tax deduction rather than a refund if I am reading correctly - only the tax does not have to be paid as would be the case for business travel expense.  Obviously worthwhile but not a free vacation as it might appear in quick read.

 

Good observation. For example, if one is in a 25% tax bracket, then for every $1 spent results in a 25 cent tax savings. If the tax laws also only allow deductions OVER a set minimum like 7%, the tax benefit can be less. But I don't understand allowing her husband travel expenses as a medical deduction as his travel would be personal.

[Strangebrew]

does that include bar fines for exercise

[belg]

thank god, those kind of tourists longer of 30 days are not allowed here anymore

 

:)

 

[BradinAsia]

how does she get the visa ..for non imm o you need a medical cert showing NO serious health issues?...as they are here for medical reasons they are not genuine tourists ?

 

If she spent 2-3 months in Thailand and 2-3 months in Indonesia, why would she need a non imm o? 

[facthailand]

Yes, of course, Canadian taxpayers will be screaming about this 'flagrant abuse'. However, as a Canadian taxpayer, I'd like to see my govt pay for social services of all kinds like this one: free education through tertiary, seniors care, homeless care, welfare offering a living wage, drug user support, true universal health insurance including prescriptions, optical, dental, maybe even a guaranteed annual income for anyone who wanted it.

 

All these, and more, could be accomplished in Canada and the US if we get rid of the wanton destruction govt funds--the military, in particular, but also support for pipelines, new prisons filled by mandatory minimums, excessive and militarised police forces.

 

The pols take holidays on our dime, why not the taxpayers?

[hawker9000]

Remember this is a tax deduction rather than a refund if I am reading correctly - only the tax does not have to be paid as would be the case for business travel expense.  Obviously worthwhile but not a free vacation as it might appear in quick read.

 

Where did the article say anything about it being a refund?  The title said 'deduction'; the article said 'deduction'; why would anybody - who knows what a tax deduction is - assume or think for a minute they're talking about anything other than a 'deduction'?   Why would anybody even suppose it could, would or should be a 'refund'?  That would be like suggesting Canada should actually finance a citizen's travel if it's for medical reasons.   (Only politicians get to do that.)

 

'Didn't think there was anything the least bit misleading, understated, or overstated about the article precisely as written.  'Couldn't have been more clear.

Edited July 30, 2014 by hawker9000

[nicoretteMan]

How do Canadian taxpayers feel about this?

 

Proud.

[retell]

She must have travelled back with an overweight suitcase filled with receipts

[GOLDBUGGY]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

 

 

Remember this is a tax deduction rather than a refund if I am reading correctly - only the tax does not have to be paid as would be the case for business travel expense.  Obviously worthwhile but not a free vacation as it might appear in quick read.

 

Where did the article say anything about it being a refund?  The title said 'deduction'; the article said 'deduction'; why would anybody - who knows what a tax deduction is - assume or think for a minute they're talking about anything other than a 'deduction'?   Why would anybody even suppose it could, would or should be a 'refund'?  That would be like suggesting Canada should actually finance a citizen's travel if it's for medical reasons.   (Only politicians get to do that.)

 

'Didn't think there was anything the least bit misleading, understated, or overstated about the article precisely as written.  'Couldn't have been more clear.

 

 

You make a good point. But now lets take another look at this from a different angle.

 

Lets say that the medical treatment needed could not be obtained in Canada. Would it still be unreasonable then if this Elderly Person sot compensation for this treatment  outside of the country? Especially if he could not afford to go on his own?

 

This woman needed to leave Canada in the winter time. She was given a tax deduction. But to me it would not have been totally unreasonable if she was paid for the full trip if she could not afford to go on her own.    

 

     

 

 

[hawker9000]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

 

 

Remember this is a tax deduction rather than a refund if I am reading correctly - only the tax does not have to be paid as would be the case for business travel expense.  Obviously worthwhile but not a free vacation as it might appear in quick read.

 

Where did the article say anything about it being a refund?  The title said 'deduction'; the article said 'deduction'; why would anybody - who knows what a tax deduction is - assume or think for a minute they're talking about anything other than a 'deduction'?   Why would anybody even suppose it could, would or should be a 'refund'?  That would be like suggesting Canada should actually finance a citizen's travel if it's for medical reasons.   (Only politicians get to do that.)

 

'Didn't think there was anything the least bit misleading, understated, or overstated about the article precisely as written.  'Couldn't have been more clear.

 

 

You make a good point. But now lets take another look at this from a different angle.

 

Lets say that the medical treatment needed could not be obtained in Canada. Would it still be unreasonable then if this Elderly Person sot compensation for this treatment  outside of the country? Especially if he could not afford to go on his own?

 

This woman needed to leave Canada in the winter time. She was given a tax deduction. But to me it would not have been totally unreasonable if she was paid for the full trip if she could not afford to go on her own.    

 

     

 

 

 

Actually, I must apologize.  The article IS ambiguous.  It mentions a "tax deduction" in some instances, and "tax credits" in others.  The two are not the same.  A deduction just walls off that portion of someone's income and makes it exempt from taxation.  A credit on the other hand, amounts to a dollar-for-dollar reduction of tax owed based on the claimed expense.  Thus, a tax credit is more like a reimbursement for her expenses, up to the amount of her tax (and more if it can be carried over to future years).   One typically deducts medical expenses for example (subject to all sorts of limitations...), and one typically claims a tax credit, say, for foreign taxes paid.