A couple rents a miniscule apartment in the downtown core of a large city. Very close to work for both of them. Covid hits and now they both have to work from home. Husband’s job becomes a permanent WFH. Wife still must go to work occasionally. To accommodate their new working requirements they buy a house outside the core. I would like to claim moving expenses…Husband’s new distance from work is zero kms. Is this reasonable? Should I try it? It is out-of-the-box but there must be thousands of people for whom this is the new normality and moving is a necessity in order to have the facilities to allow them to work efficiently.
I do not feel that is what the intent of this deduction is… given this deduction is almost always reviewed I do not understand why you would attempt to stretch for a definition that is clear.
while unfortunate they feel they should move to better accomodate their present situation. If they are not moving closer to work or education then this deduction is not available much as you/ they want it.
Rachel Thibodeau-Parlee
I agree with @rachelavryl; the rules are the rules regardless of what we would like them to be. I am working with a taxpayer who had to sell his house and is still unable to pay back CRA because his previous tax preparer wanted to help him by stretching the law.
Distance from his place of work before the move was 0 and is still 0 at the new location so how do you calculate 40 or more km closer to his place of work?
As helga points out, they would be making a claim without substance.
However, ITA S238/239 could provide them with two years free accommodation (after conviction) at her Majesty’s pleasure for contravening the Act and making a false claim, (her majesty might also invite the tax preparer), so there could be an upside… 
I must have missed something. Is the distance from the old residence and the new residence greater than 40 km? The new work location is the new residence, correct? If the distance is at least 40 km, then the distance test is met. Yes or no? Assuming the distance test is satisfied, there remains the purpose test. Folio S1-F3-C4 deals with eligible relocations, etc. Part of the purpose test is:
4.8 The required connection does not exist when an individual moves solely for personal reasons.
This, I believe, is where the moving expense claim fails.
Have I missed, or mis-interpreted something?
The move was to a new home purchased so there is room for a home office. The distance moved is not relevant as it is to work at home. So it fails based on the 40km as well.
Thank you for all your replies. I certainly am not trying to put forward a false claim.
However, if the 40 km test is met, they are not moving for ‘personal’ reasons but instead for work reasons. It could be argued that the husband now has a ‘new’ job per Covid - he did not work from home), the requirements for which are an office in the home. As this was not possible in the previous accommodation, they had to move.
You are almost convincing me. I just hate to do something chancy that may come back to bite my client.
As pointed out by other posters, the move does not qualify and you are putting yourself and the taxpayers at risk… best of luck during the audit process
Rachel Thibodeau-Parlee
@jhd.hemeon
For each of these two employees, the original residence is “Very close to work for both of them.”
Moving 40km further away from work does not count.
So it doubly (or quadruply) fails…
That is what I was thinking - it really fails on three fronts.
This is why I rarely reply to any of these threads. They very quickly degenerate to the level of opinions without reference to the requirements.
Where do you find the definition of “new place of work”? Wouldn’t common sense tell you that, if you work from home, your place of work is your home, not the address of your employer?
Distance test = (distance from old residence to new work) - (distance from new residence to new work)
Work location is a residence both before and after the move.
Assume distance to be 40km.
Distance test = 40 - 0 = 40
Distance test passed
Purpose test = see folio S1-F3-C4.
The move was to allow for more comfortable work arrangements, which I judge to be personal.
Purpose test failed.
No moving claim.
So, don’t post if all you have is an opinion. Show me where CRA defines “place of work”.
Plus… it has to be a “new” place of work (as opposed to just move closer to your current work)
You may have been thinking of self employed business people (and that the move is for a business purpose).
Such is not the subject of this thread.
Agree that it fails on purpose.
However, also fails on distance.
And on probably a few other things that I am too lazy to check now…
Not an eligible relocation.
@helga_spence
Insufficient information was posted to determine the location of employee husband’s work.
However, there is indeed nothing to support a position that he moved 40km nearer to his work, or even because of his employers work.
@jhd.hemeon I believe he was asking for our thoughts - I gave him my thoughts along with a case that I thought would serve to show why I think the way I do. He seems to know the rules, but seemed to be looking for a way around them.
.
If true, that taxpayer could probably sue his previous tax preparer for the penalties, interest, and possibly your subsequent fixing fees…
He probably could but won’t. When the tax preparer received the letter from CRA asking if those were the correct facts, he referred the client to me rather than getting involved. I didn’t know all the facts until I tried to do a Request for Taxpayer Relief then the truth came to light. The tax payer should have known; but was counting on the preparer. He is not prepared to hire a lawyer. I will just try a different tack with the Request for Tax Payer Relief.