Article content material

It’s too early to start submitting your 2022 private tax return — digital submitting of T1 returns solely opens on Feb. 20 — however now could be the right time to start out gathering the receipts you’ll want, together with these associated to medical bills in case you’re hoping to say the medical expense tax credit score (METC).

Article content material

The METC is a non-refundable credit score price 15 per cent federally, with every province and territory providing its personal further credit score. Federally, you may declare an METC offered your complete household’s medical bills exceed a minimal threshold equal to the lesser of three per cent of your internet earnings or $2,635 (for 2023). The provincial/territorial minimal earnings thresholds differ barely.

Article content material

The tax guidelines assist you to declare an METC for bills you incurred for your self, your partner or companion, and your youngsters underneath age 18. To qualify, the medical service or merchandise should be particularly listed as an “eligible” medical expense underneath the Earnings Tax Act. In sure restricted conditions, you may additionally be entitled to deduct the price of “cheap journey bills” resembling transportation, meals and lodging if you need to journey to acquire these medical companies.

Article content material

However so as to deduct transportation as a medical expense, the medical companies should not be obtainable in the local people, the place of journey should be situated greater than 40 kilometres from the affected person’s dwelling (80 km if you wish to deduct journey bills aside from transportation), the route taken should be a direct one and “it should be cheap for the taxpayer to journey to that place to acquire the companies.” In sure circumstances, a companion’s journey bills may additionally qualify for an METC offered a medical practitioner has licensed the taxpayer can’t journey with out help.

A tax case determined earlier in January concerned an Alberta taxpayer’s try to say an METC of $853 for hospital parking bills that his spouse, a retired nurse, paid through the 2018 tax yr. In that yr, the taxpayer’s spouse travelled thrice per week to acquire kidney dialysis remedy at an Edmonton hospital. On a dialysis day, the taxpayer’s spouse would drive from their dwelling to the hospital, the place she would park the automotive, after which, upon completion of her remedy session, drive dwelling, which was roughly 22 km from the hospital.

Article content material

The taxpayer testified that these dialysis remedies “have been life-saving and with out similar his partner would have died.” The taxpayer equated her parking expense to a medical remedy expense as she wanted to have the ability to park her automotive to obtain remedies and, thus, they need to correctly be allowed as a medical expense for the needs of claiming an METC.

The taxpayer was primarily difficult the 80-km distance requirement within the Tax Act as being discriminatory and opposite to the Canadian Constitution of Rights and Freedoms. “My spouse has to park to acquire dialysis,” the taxpayer defined. “(The legislation) discriminates towards individuals who should journey lower than 80 km for needed medical remedy” because it solely permits such parking bills to be deducted for people who journey larger than 80 km to acquire remedy.

Article content material

The decide turned to the wording of the constitution itself, which, underneath the Equality Rights heading, states: “Each particular person is equal earlier than and underneath the legislation and has the suitable to the equal safety and equal good thing about the legislation with out discrimination and, particularly, with out discrimination based mostly on race, nationwide or ethnic origin, color, faith, intercourse, age or psychological or bodily incapacity.”

The decide mentioned this was not a case the place there was any discrimination between people because it pertains to claiming an METC. It’s true that the Tax Act specifies a limitation of “not lower than 80 km,” however this limitation shouldn’t be based mostly on, neither is it utilized on the premise of, variations of people themselves. It’s utilized on the premise of whether or not any particular particular person travels lower than 80 km to acquire medical companies. In different phrases, the act, which makes a distinction for one-way journey distances of “not lower than 80 km applies equally to any and all people looking for to say a METC.”

Article content material

The decide famous Parliament selected to acknowledge hospital parking prices (being a part of “cheap journey bills”) as a medical expense for one-way journey of not lower than 80 km. However that doesn’t imply Parliament is discriminating by not granting the identical recognition of parking prices for one-way journey of any lesser distance. In spite of everything, Parliament is entitled to make such distinctions within the act for causes resembling “defending the fisc” with out it constituting discrimination.

“Parliament is underneath no obligation to create a selected profit,” the Supreme Court docket of Canada has beforehand said, “(and) is free to focus on the social applications it needs to fund as a matter of public coverage, offered the profit itself shouldn’t be conferred in a discriminatory method.”

The decide, subsequently, dismissed the taxpayer’s declare for the METC, however selected to not award any prices to the Crown contemplating the circumstances.

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.

_____________________________________________________________