If these costs qualify for the medical expense tax credit then by definition they would be covered as a medical expense under a PHSP.

In an external interpretation, CRA stated its position as “No”

In that external interpretation, CRA stated its reasons as “Regulation 5700(j) prescribes an external breast prosthesis that is required because of a mastectomy but there is no provision to allow the cost of undergarments to hold an external breast prosthesis in place.”

CRA went further to offer the following comments.

“This is in response to your letter of February 15, 2012, inquiring about whether the cost of undergarments required to hold a prosthesis in place after a mastectomy qualify as medical expenses for purposes of the medical expense tax credit (“METC”). In particular, you are referring to the special undergarments and bathing suits that must be worn to hold the prosthesis in place.

Our Comments

Medical expenses which are eligible for the METC are limited to those described in subsection 118.2(2) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”). If a particular expenditure is not described as an eligible medical expense in subsection 118.2(2) of the Act, or if the conditions under which the expenditure would qualify are not met, the expenditure does not qualify for purposes of the METC, even though the expenditure may have been incurred for medical reasons.

Paragraph 118.2(2)(m) allows a deduction for medical equipment prescribed in section 5700 of the Income Tax Regulations (the “Regulations”) that are prescribed by a medical practitioner and meet the conditions that have been prescribed as to its use or the reason for its acquisition. Paragraph 5700 (j) of the Regulations prescribes an external breast prosthesis that is required because of a mastectomy as an eligible medical device. However, there is no provision that permits the cost of undergarments required to keep a prosthesis in place after a mastectomy to qualify as a medical expense for purposes of the METC under subsection 118.2(2) of the Act.”

PLEASE NOTE that the above blog post, although believed to be correct at the time of posting, may not represent the current position of the CRA. Further this blog is not intended to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice. If legal, accounting, or other expert assistance is required, the service of a competent professional person should be sought.

If these costs qualify for the medical expense tax credit then by definition they would be covered as a medical expense under a PHSP.

In an external interpretation, CRA stated its position as “Question of fact but it appears that the payments are made in respect of medical services performed by medical practitioners. However, the cost of personal trainers is not allowable as a medical expense as they are not medical practitioners in the province of Ontario.”

In that external interpretation, CRA stated its reasons as “See 118.2(2)(a) and (o)”

CRA went further to offer the following comments.

“Re: Weight Loss Program – Medical Expense Tax Credit

This is in response to your email of November 22, 2011, regarding medical expenses.

You are asking whether amounts paid for a weight loss treatment program qualify as a medical expense for purposes of the medical expense tax credit (“METC”). You indicate that the program is offered at a medical clinic with a fitness facility on-site, and includes the services of medical doctors, registered dietitians, psychologists, and personal trainers. You are also asking whether the fees paid for fitness activities led by personal trainers qualify as a medical expense.

Our Comments

Medical expenses which are eligible for the METC are limited to those described in subsection 118.2(2) of the Act. If a particular expenditure is not described as an eligible medical expense in subsection 118.2(2) of the Act, or if the conditions under which the expenditure would qualify are not met, the expenditure does not qualify for purposes of the METC, even though the expenditure may have been incurred for medical reasons.

Paragraph 118.2(2)(o) of the Act allows as an eligible medical expense amounts paid for laboratory, radiological or other diagnostic procedures or services prescribed for a patient by a medical practitioner or dentist. Under this provision, the diagnostic procedures or services (together with the necessary interpretations) must be for maintaining health, preventing disease or assisting in the diagnosis or treatment of any injury, illness or disability. The reference to “other diagnostic procedures or services” is generally limited to diagnostic services or procedures of the same class as laboratory or radiological services. In other words, the procedures or services must assist a medical practitioner in making a diagnosis and formulating a course of treatment.

Fees paid to a weight-loss clinic would not qualify as a medical expense under paragraph 118.2(2)(o) unless such fees are paid for a procedure or service of a diagnostic nature and the other conditions in the provision are met. However, fees for a weight-loss clinic may qualify under paragraph 118.2(2)(a) of the Act if all the conditions of that provision are met.

Pursuant to paragraph 118.2(2)(a) of the Act, an amount is considered to qualify as a medical expense for the purposes of the METC if it is paid to a medical practitioner, dentist or nurse or a public or licensed private hospital in respect of medical or dental services. In general terms, a “medical practitioner” is a person who is authorized by a province or other jurisdiction to act as a medical practitioner. In our view, a person is authorized by a province or other jurisdiction to act as a medical practitioner if there is specific legislation that enables, permits or empowers the person to practice as such.

An amount paid by an individual in respect of a “medical service” provided by a licensed medical practitioner would qualify as a medical expense eligible for the METC where the amount is paid directly to the medical practitioner or to a corporation that employs the medical practitioner. A “medical service” is a service relating to the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of disease performed by a medical practitioner acting within the scope of his or her professional training. In our view, a weight-loss program would be considered a medical service when the program is offered to an individual for therapeutic or rehabilitative reasons. Accordingly, in our view, fees paid to a weight-loss clinic by an individual in respect of a weight-loss program would qualify for the METC where the services are provided by a medical practitioner who is so authorized to act as such in the province in which the services are rendered.

You have also asked whether the cost of personal trainers would qualify as a medical expense. We are unaware of any provincial legislation that authorizes and regulates personal trainers. Since personal trainers do not appear to be authorized as medical practitioners under the laws of Ontario, payments made to personal trainers would not qualify as medical expenses.”

PLEASE NOTE that the above blog post, although believed to be correct at the time of posting, may not represent the current position of the CRA. Further this blog is not intended to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice. If legal, accounting, or other expert assistance is required, the service of a competent professional person should be sought.

If these costs qualify for the medical expense tax credit then by definition they would be covered as a medical expense under a PHSP.

In an external interpretation, CRA stated its position as “No, if the lactulose is lawfully available without a prescription then it would not generally qualify as a medical expense for purposes of the medical expense tax credit.”

In that external interpretation, CRA stated its reasons as “Paragraph 118.2(2)(n) of the Income Tax Act”

CRA went further to offer the following comments.

“Re: Medical expenses

This is in response to your correspondence of September 1, 2011, wherein you request information regarding whether the amounts paid for lactulose, when prescribed for by a medical practitioner and recorded by a pharmacist would qualify as a medical expense for the purposes of the medical expense tax credit (“METC”).

Written confirmation of the tax implications inherent in particular transactions is given by this Directorate only where the transactions are proposed and are the subject matter of a request for an advance income tax ruling submitted in the manner set out in Information Circular 70-6R5, “Advanced Income Tax Rulings”, dated May 17, 2002. This Information Circular and other Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) publications can be accessed on the internet at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca. Where the particular transactions are complete, the inquiry should be addressed to the relevant tax services office, a list of which is available on the “Contact Us” page of the CRA website. Although we cannot comment on your specific situation, we are prepared to provide the following comments in respect of the issues that you raised. Please note, however, that these comments are of a general nature only and are not binding on the CRA.

Medical expenses which are eligible for the METC are limited to those described in subsection 118.2(2) of the Act. If a particular expenditure is not described as an eligible medical expense in subsection 118.2(2) of the Act, or if the conditions under which the expenditure would qualify are not met, the expenditure does not qualify for purposes of the METC, even though the expenditure may have been incurred for medical reasons.

Subparagraph 118.2(2)(n)(i) of the Act allows the costs paid for drugs, medicaments or other preparations or substances (hereinafter referred to as “drugs”):
(A) that are manufactured, sold or represented for use in the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of a disease, disorder or abnormal physical state, or its symptoms, or in restoring, correcting or modifying an organic function; (B) that can lawfully be acquired for use by the patient only if prescribed by a medical practitioner or dentist; and
(C) the purchase of which is recorded by a pharmacist.

Based on the foregoing, only drugs that can lawfully be purchased only with a prescription qualify under this provision.

Drugs that may lawfully be acquired without a prescription may qualify for the METC under subparagraph 118.2(2)(n)(ii) of the Act as prescribed under section 5701 of the Income Tax Regulations (“Regulations”) which allows the cost of a drug if the drug: (a) is manufactured, sold or represented for use in the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of a disease, disorder or abnormal physical state, or its symptoms, or in restoring, correcting or modifying an organic function;
(b) is prescribed for a patient by a medical practitioner; and
(c) may, in the jurisdiction in which it is acquired, be lawfully acquired for use by the patient only with the intervention of a medical practitioner.

Thus, a drug that may only be acquired through the intervention of a medical practitioner (a pharmacist, for example) may qualify under section 5701 of the Regulations even if it does not lawfully require a prescription. However, pursuant to this provision, the patient must still obtain a prescription for the particular use of the drug.

It is a question of fact whether a drug may lawfully be acquired only by prescription (or only with the intervention of a medical practitioner) and to make this determination, it would be necessary to examine both federal and provincial/territorial legislation and regulations. In this regard, if lactulose is available for self-selection as an over-the-counter product, it would not generally meet the requirements of any of the above-noted provisions, and would not qualify as a medical expense for the METC.”

PLEASE NOTE that the above blog post, although believed to be correct at the time of posting, may not represent the current position of the CRA. Further this blog is not intended to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice. If legal, accounting, or other expert assistance is required, the service of a competent professional person should be sought.

If these costs qualify for the medical expense tax credit then by definition they would be covered as a medical expense under a PHSP.

In an external interpretation, CRA stated its position as “No”

In that external interpretation, CRA stated its reasons as “Based on information provided, it appears to be not purely cosmetic. EVLT treatment qualifies as a medical service as it relates to treatment for a medical condition, varicose veins.”

CRA went further to offer the following comments.

“Re: Endovenous Laser Therapy (“EVLT”)

We are replying to your letter of June 22, 2011, concerning whether the cost of EVLT would qualify as an eligible medical expense for purposes of the medical expense tax credit (“METC”) under subsection 118.2(1) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”).

In particular, your question relates to EVLT as a treatment for symptomatic varicose veins, which is generally characterized by bulging, throbbing pain, swelling and discomfort. It is our understanding that in EVLT, an optical fiber is inserted into the vein to be treated, and then laser light, normally in the infrared portion of the spectrum, is shone into the interior of the vein. This causes the vein to contract, after which the optical fiber is slowly withdrawn. After the procedure, a patient is required to use compression stockings for the following three weeks. You are asking whether the cost of the EVLT procedure and the compression stockings are eligible medical expenses.

Written confirmation of the tax implications inherent in particular transactions is given by this Directorate only where the transactions are proposed and are the subject matter of an advance income tax ruling request submitted in the manner set out in Information Circular 70-6R5, Advance Income Tax Rulings. Nonetheless, we have provided an outline of the rules in the Act that may be relevant to your situation.”

PLEASE NOTE that the above blog post, although believed to be correct at the time of posting, may not represent the current position of the CRA. Further this blog is not intended to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice. If legal, accounting, or other expert assistance is required, the service of a competent professional person should be sought.

If these costs qualify for the medical expense tax credit then by definition they would be covered as a medical expense under a PHSP.

In an external interpretation, CRA stated its position as “Question of fact.”

In that external interpretation, CRA stated its reasons as “Onus is on taxpayer to obtain details and verification from medical practitioner explaining why procedure is not purely cosmetic in nature.”

CRA went further to offer the following general comments.

“Medical expenses which are eligible for the METC are limited to those described in subsection 118.2(2) of the Act. If a particular expenditure is not described as an eligible medical expense in subsection 118.2(2) of the Act, or if the conditions under which the expenditure would qualify are not met, the expenditure does not qualify for purposes of the METC, even though the expenditure may have been incurred for medical reasons.

Pursuant to paragraph 118.2(2)(a) of the Act, an amount paid by an individual to a medical practitioner, a dentist or a nurse (a “medical practitioner”) or to a public or private licensed hospital for medical services is a qualifying medical expense for the METC. A medical practitioner must be authorized to practice their particular profession according to the laws of the jurisdiction in which the service is rendered, whereas a licensed private hospital means licensed by the jurisdiction in which the hospital operates. A list of authorized medical practitioners by province is listed on our website at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/ddctns/lns300-350/330/ampp-eng.html. A “medical service” means a service relating to the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of a disease or disorder performed by a medical practitioner acting within the scope of his or her professional training. An amount qualifying under paragraph 118.2(2)(a) of the Act may be denied pursuant to subsection 118.2(2.1) of the Act if the service was provided purely for cosmetic purposes. In particular, this latter provision excludes from eligible medical expenses, an amount paid for medical or dental services, including any related expenses, which are provided purely for cosmetic purposes unless they are necessary for medical or reconstructive purposes.

It is a question of fact whether a particular service or procedure was provided purely for cosmetic purposes, and the onus is on the taxpayer to substantiate that a particular medical service is not subject to this provision. Thus, where a particular medical procedure or service is cosmetic in nature, taxpayers may wish to obtain a detailed description of the nature and purpose of the medical service from the authorized medical practitioner performing the service as a means of establishing that subsection 118.2(2.1) of the Act does not apply.”

PLEASE NOTE that the above blog post, although believed to be correct at the time of posting, may not represent the current position of the CRA. Further this blog is not intended to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice. If legal, accounting, or other expert assistance is required, the service of a competent professional person should be sought.

If these costs qualify for the medical expense tax credit then by definition they would be covered as a medical expense under a private health services plan.

In an external interpretation, CRA stated its position as “No, if it is lawfully available without a prescription then it would not generally qualify as a medical expense.”

In that external interpretation, CRA stated its reasons as “Not allowable under 118.2(2)(n) of the Income Tax Act..”

CRA went further to offer the following comments.

“Medical expenses which are eligible for the METC are limited to those described in subsection 118.2(2) of the Act. If a particular expenditure is not described as an eligible medical expense in subsection 118.2(2) of the Act, or if the conditions under which the expenditure would qualify are not met, the expenditure does not qualify for purposes of the METC, even though the expenditure may have been incurred for medical reasons.

Subparagraph 118.2(2)(n)(i) of the Act allows the costs paid for drugs, medicaments or other preparations or substances (hereinafter referred to as “drugs”):

(A) that are manufactured, sold or represented for use in the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of a disease, disorder or abnormal physical state, or its symptoms, or in restoring, correcting or modifying an organic function;

(B) that can lawfully be acquired for use by the patient only if prescribed by a medical practitioner or dentist; and

(C) the purchase of which is recorded by a pharmacist.

Based on the foregoing, only drugs that can lawfully be purchased only with a prescription qualify under this provision.

Drugs that may lawfully be acquired without a prescription may qualify for the METC under subparagraph 118.2(2)(n)(ii) of the Act as prescribed under section 5701 of the Income Tax Regulations (“Regulations”) which allows the cost of a drug if the drug:

(a) is manufactured, sold or represented for use in the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of a disease, disorder or abnormal physical state, or its symptoms, or in restoring, correcting or modifying an organic function;

(b) is prescribed for a patient by a medical practitioner; and

(c) may, in the jurisdiction in which it is acquired, be lawfully acquired for use by the patient only with the intervention of a medical practitioner.

Thus, a drug that may only be acquired through the intervention of a medical practitioner (a pharmacist, for example) may qualify under section 5701 of the Regulations even if it does not lawfully require a prescription. However, pursuant to this provision, the patient must still obtain a prescription for the particular use of the drug.

It is a question of fact whether a particular drug may lawfully be acquired only by prescription (or only with the intervention of a medical practitioner). Therefore, it would be necessary to examine both federal and provincial/territorial legislation and regulations in order to make the determination for a particular drug.

If this baby formula is available for self-selection as an over-the-counter product, it would not generally meet the requirements of any of the above noted provisions, and would not qualify as a medical expense for the METC.”

PLEASE NOTE that the above blog post, although believed to be correct at the time of posting, may not represent the current position of the CRA. Further this blog is not intended to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice. If legal, accounting, or other expert assistance is required, the service of a competent professional person should be sought.

If these costs qualify for the medical expense tax credit then by definition they would be covered as a medical expense under a private health services plan.

In an external interpretation, CRA stated its position as “(1) No (2) No”

In that external interpretation, CRA stated its reasons as “(1) An individual must have been certified in writing by a medical practitioner to be a person who, because of celiac disease, requires a gluten-free diet. (2) The school in question does not provide the specialized equipment, facilities or personnel for the care, or care and training, for an individual with an autistic disorder.”

CRA went further to offer the following general comments which are not binding on CRA.

“Gluten free diet

Subsection 118.2(2) Income Tax Act (the “Act”) describes the types of drugs, medicaments and other preparations that may qualify as medical expenses. Paragraph 118.2(2)(r) of the Act provides that the incremental cost of gluten-free food products, as compared to the cost of comparable non-gluten-free food products, may qualify as a medical expense if a patient has been certified in writing by a medical practitioner to be a person who, because of celiac disease, requires a gluten-free diet. Unless the child has been certified in writing by a medical practitioner to be a person who, because of celiac disease, requires a gluten-free diet, the incremental cost of gluten-free food would not qualify as a medical expense.

Private School fees
There are two requirements that must be met in order for fees paid to a school, institution or other place to qualify as a medical expense under paragraph 118.2(2)(e) of the Act in respect of a student who receives care and training at that place:
(a) the student must be suffering from a physical or mental handicap, the severity of which is such that the student requires the equipment, facilities or personnel specially provided by the school, institution or other place; and,
(b) an appropriately qualified person must certify that the above conditions are met with respect to the individual receiving the care at that place.
This certification is usually carried out by a medical practitioner, but is not restricted to such professionals. Generally, the certificate should include a description of the equipment, facilities or trained professionals required to adequately provide care, or care and training, for the individual. In addition, the CRA must be satisfied that the equipment, facilities or personnel provided by a particular place meet this description.

Based upon the information provided, it is our view that the school in question does not provide the specialized equipment, facilities or personnel for the care, or care and training, for an individual with autism. XXXXXXXXXX ‘s approach focuses on a low student-to-teacher ratio, beneficial social effects and a stimulating atmosphere. These factors, while beneficial to children in general, are not determinative in deciding whether a school, institution or other place is a qualifying facility for the purposes of paragraph 118.1(2)(e) of the Act.”

PLEASE NOTE that the above blog post, although believed to be correct at the time of posting, may not represent the current position of the CRA. Further this blog is not intended to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice. If legal, accounting, or other expert assistance is required, the service of a competent professional person should be sought.

If these costs qualify for the medical expense tax credit then by definition they would be covered as a medical expense under a private health services plan.

In an external interpretation, CRA stated its position as “Yes if all the conditions of the particular provision are met as various provisions may apply. It is a question of fact if all the conditions are met and thus general comments provided.”

In that external interpretation, CRA stated its reasons as “Wording of the provisions.”

CRA went further to offer the following comments.

“Medical expenses which are eligible for the METC are described in subsection 118.2(2) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”). For example, there are various provisions that may apply to allow an amount paid for attendant care or nursing home care to qualify for the METC and each provision has its own specific requirements that must be met in order for the expenditure to be eligible for the METC pursuant to that particular provision. Paragraphs 23 to 30 of Interpretation Bulletin IT-519R2 (Consolidated), Medical Expense and Disability Tax Credits and Attendant Care Expense Deduction, describe the various provisions that may apply. In addition, reference may also be made to CRA Guide RC4064, Medical and Disability-Related Information.

Since the term “nursing home” is not defined in the Act, we rely on the ordinary meaning of the term in determining if a particular facility qualifies as a nursing home. Generally, we consider a nursing home to be an establishment that provides full-time maintenance or nursing care for persons who are unable to care for themselves. While we accept that a particular place need not be a licensed nursing home, we are of the view that it must have the equivalent features and characteristics of a nursing home. For example, a nursing home is normally a facility of a public character which offers 24-hour nursing care to individuals who are not related to the facility owner/operator.”

PLEASE NOTE that the above blog post, although believed to be correct at the time of posting, may not represent the current position of the CRA. Further this blog is not intended to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice. If legal, accounting, or other expert assistance is required, the service of a competent professional person should be sought.

If these costs qualify for the medical expense tax credit then by definition they would be covered as a medical expense under a private health services plan.

In an external interpretation, CRA stated its position as “Question of fact, but in this case, since the procedures are a result of the medical condition of PCOS, they would appear to qualify as a medical expense if performed by a qualified medical practitioner.”

In that external interpretation, CRA stated its reasons as “The hair removal procedures may qualify as an eligible medical expense since they appear to be necessary as a result of a medical condition and are therefore, not purely for cosmetic purposes.”

CRA went further to offer the following comments.

“Medical expenses which are eligible for the METC are limited to those described in subsection 118.2(2) of the Act. If a particular expenditure is not described as an eligible medical expense in subsection 118.2(2) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”), or if the conditions under which the expenditure would qualify are not met, the expenditure does not qualify for purposes of the METC, even though the expenditure may have been incurred for medical reasons.

Pursuant to paragraph 118.2(2)(a) of the Act, an amount is considered to qualify as a medical expense for the purposes of the METC if it is paid to a medical practitioner, dentist or nurse or a public or licensed private hospital in respect of medical or dental services. Paragraph 118.4(2)(a) of the Act provides that where the reference to a medical practitioner, dentist or nurse (a “practitioner”) is used in respect of a service rendered to an individual, that reference is to a person authorized to practice as such pursuant to the relevant provincial legislation to determine whether the particular practitioner is authorized under the laws of that province. Therefore, in order to determine whether a particular practitioner qualifies as such under the Act, one must look to the relevant provincial legislation whether the particular practitioner is authorized under the laws of that province. Thus, if a service is rendered in Ontario, the practitioner must be authorized to practice as such pursuant to the laws of Ontario. Your letter did not identify whether a medical practitioner, as contemplated under paragraph 118.2(2)(a), performed the laser hair removal procedures.

Pursuant to subsection 118.2(2.1) of the Act, a medical expense does not include amounts paid for medical or dental services, nor any related expenses, provided purely for cosmetic purposes, unless necessary for medical or reconstructive purposes. The CRA has posted on its web site some examples of procedures that will generally be ineligible as medical expenses for purposes of the METC.

A cosmetic procedure will continue to qualify for the METC if it is required for medical or reconstructive purposes, such as surgery to ameliorate a deformity arising from, or directly related to, a congenital abnormality, a personal injury resulting from an accident or trauma, or a disfiguring disease.

It is a question of fact whether or not a medical or dental service is provided purely for cosmetic purposes and whether or not it is necessary for medical or reconstructive purposes. The determination in a particular situation would be based on consideration of all the relevant facts and supporting documentation. This may include consideration of an opinion of a qualified medical practitioner describing the nature and purpose of the procedure in sufficient detail in order to be able to make a determination.

In our view, procedures to treat PCOS would generally be considered to have a medical or reconstructive purpose. Therefore, such procedures may qualify as eligible medical expenses if all the conditions under paragraph 118.2(2)(a) are also met.”

PLEASE NOTE that the above blog post, although believed to be correct at the time of posting, may not represent the current position of the CRA. Further this blog is not intended to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice. If legal, accounting, or other expert assistance is required, the service of a competent professional person should be sought.

If these costs qualify for the medical expense tax credit then by definition they would be covered as a medical expense under a private health services plan.

In an external interpretation, CRA stated its position as “Travel to the school and back home do qualify as medical expenses; rent expenses and travel home for Christmas do not.”

In that external interpretation, CRA stated its reasons as “Travel costs do not include the cost for accommodation and trips that are not for the purpose of obtaining medical services.”

CRA went further to offer the following comments.

“Section 118.2 of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) provides rules for determining the amount that may be claimed, as a tax credit, in respect of medical expenses. Subsection 118.2(2) of the Act contains a list of expenditures that qualify as medical expenses.

Travel costs incurred to obtain medical services qualify as medical expenses if they satisfy the requirements in paragraph 118.2(2)(g) for costs related to transportation or paragraph 118.2(2)(h) of the Act for other travel costs. An individual is entitled to claim the transportation and travel expenses described in these paragraphs only if the following conditions are met:

i) substantially equivalent medical services were not available in the locality where the individual resides,

ii) a reasonably direct travelling route was taken by the individual, and

iii) the individual travelled to the particular place to obtain medical services for himself or herself and it is reasonable, having regard to the circumstances, for the individual to have travelled to that place to obtain these services.

An amount paid to a person engaged in the business of providing transportation services to transport an individual not less than 40 kilometres from the locality where the individual resides to a place where medical services are received may qualify as a medical expense under paragraph 118.2(2)(g) of the Act. Similarly, other travel expenses may qualify as medical expenses under paragraph 118.2(2)(h) of the Act if the individual travels not less than 80 kilometres from the locality where the individual dwells to a place where medical services are received.

In addition to the travel costs related to the individual, costs related to another person, who accompanies the individual in the circumstances discussed above, may qualify as medical expenses where the individual was, and has been certified by a medical practitioner to be, incapable of travelling without the assistance of an attendant.

Expenses meeting the criteria under paragraphs 118.2(2)(g) and (h) are generally allowed to the extent that they are reasonable and there is no reason to preclude their deduction (for example, if an insurance company were to reimburse the expenses).

In our view, given that sign language services qualify as medical services under paragraph 118.2(2)(l.4), the travel costs (including your meals and accommodations) to transport your daughter to the school in XXXXXXXXXX and the final travel costs home would qualify as medical expenses provided the above conditions are met. However, expenses such as the rent expenses incurred in XXXXXXXXXX , and travelling expenses incurred to come home for Christmas are not travel to obtain medical services and hence, do not qualify as medical expenses.”

PLEASE NOTE that the above blog post, although believed to be correct at the time of posting, may not represent the current position of the CRA. Further this blog is not intended to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice. If legal, accounting, or other expert assistance is required, the service of a competent professional person should be sought.