For grammar enthusiasts see the case of Hoch v. The Queen, which hinged on whether the word “or” at the end of subparagraph 8(1)(c)(iii) is disjunctive or conjunctive. The Rabbi owned 3/8 of a property and Aish owned the other 5/8th. The Rabbi was trying to claim two clergy deductions one aimed at properties provided to the clergyman and the value of which is included in income under section 6 and one deduction for self-owned or rented properties. The Rabbi had to claim a deduction under both sub-paragraphs because of the ownership split between himself and Aish. Unfortunately, the structuring of the provision didn’t seem to contemplate an ownership split necessitating claiming a deduction under both (iii) and (iv). Technically the decision seems right but it does seem like the result probably isn’t in accordance with the intent of the legislation.
/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Logo-v4-300x96.png 0 0 fladmin /wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Logo-v4-300x96.png fladmin2019-09-24 00:25:402019-09-24 00:25:40Hoch v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 99 (CanLII)