THUNDER BAY -- The Tax Court of Canada has rejected a Thunder Bay resident's claim for medical expense travel credits for costs she and her husband incurred in Thailand.
In a decision issued this month, a judge dismissed the woman's appeal of the Minister of National Revenue's decision to disallow her claim.
The appellant has a long history of serious medical problems, and has been implanted with metallic prosthetic devices in her jaw. Doctors advised her to stay in a warmer climate from November to May, because cold weather exacerbates her pain.
Her family doctor further determined that because she requires daily assistance, she needed a companion (her husband) to travel with her.
Court was told that over the last 19 years, the couple has spent the winter in warm locations including Indonesia, India, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Ecuador, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina.
According to a court transcript, they travelled to these countries primarily for the warm climate "as well as for other considerations." One of these considerations was the availability of medical services "since it was highly likely that the Appellant would require such services no matter where she was."
After a trip to Thailand and Cambodia, she reported just over $19,000 in medical expenses (for travel, meals and accommodation) for her and her spouse for the 2014 taxation year.
Court was told that she had required treatment for three different medical problems during that stay, including one that resulted in heart surgery upon her return to Canada.
The woman's lawyer argued that, given his client's unique circumstances, it was reasonable for her and her husband to travel to Bangkok,Thailand to obtain medical services, and that their expenses are properly allowed under the Income Tax Act.
The government's lawyer maintained that the purpose of such travel must be to obtain medical services, and "that was not the purpose of her travel " to Thailand. Rather, he said, "it was in order to benefit from the salutary effects of the warm climate," which do not constitute a medical service under the Income Tax Act.
He also argued that it had not been shown that substantially equivalent medical services were not available nearer to where the couple resides.
In dismissing the woman's appeal, the judge stated that "there is simply no reason why she could not have accessed medical services closer to home for a fraction of the cost."
