# T1-M Moving Costs detour



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

An interesting question came up again. Say someone moves from Winnipeg to Vancouver, by car loaded with posessions, and wants to claim moving expenses on their tax return. The simplified method provides some much per km, and so much per day for meals. But what if the person took a route through the US, say via Yellowstone, turning a 2200km direct trip into 2900km, and an extra day or two. Can this detour be claimed in full? If not, would one use the distance for the direct route? But the number of days and hotel costs are then guesswork. What if the detour is an extra 1500km (via Salt Lake City, say) and three days? I can see how the full trip might be inappropriate, but how would one calculate the costs for a direct route not taken?


----------



## Soils4Peace (Mar 14, 2010)

It is not about travel distance. It is km from old home to new work/school minus km from new home to new work/school.


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

That's the test to check for eligibility - the form doesn't actually tell you to insert that number into the travel expenses. But even if you assume the direct distance for the mileage claim, you are still claiming for accommodation costs, and meals for a specific number of days. Would one assume some number of days the trip "should" have taken, and take a subset of accommodation costs of one's choice from the actual trip?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

NorthernRaven said:


> Would one assume some number of days the trip "should" have taken, and take a subset of accommodation costs of one's choice from the actual trip?


That's what I'd do.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Although not what the OP is asking, joyriding when you have all your possessions in your vehicle is a bit of a crime risk. You might also have a little trouble at the border.

Wouldn't it be better to pay for professional movers and have them move all your possessions, then you can claim their invoice on taxes and then be able to take the extra travelling days desired? You would travel in one car without the risk of all your possessions with you. (just make sure you are able to get to the new place before they do)


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

I'm pretty sure in this case it was "a couple of suitcases and some Ikea boxes"; the car in question is some sort of compact hatchback, without a roof rack.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

Since you can't claim vacation on your personal tax return why would this be any different?

Ignoring the move you take two days vacation, can't claim.
In this case you take two days vacation, can't claim it either, just because you are in the middle of the move makes no difference at all. As previously mentioned you should deduct the vacation expenses from the total expenses and claim the difference (regardless if you use simplified method or not).


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

Homerhomer said:


> Since you can't claim vacation on your personal tax return why would this be any different?
> 
> Ignoring the move you take two days vacation, can't claim.
> In this case you take two days vacation, can't claim it either, just because you are in the middle of the move makes no difference at all. As previously mentioned you should deduct the vacation expenses from the total expenses and claim the difference (regardless if you use simplified method or not).


The problem is they didn't just stop along the direct route, they took a different route, and there's no easy way to determine which part of it is the "vacation".

It is fairly easy to determine the direct distance, but since that trip was never made, how many days should it be assumed to take? Presumably one would just have to choose a reasonable (but arbitrary) number of kilometres per day, and base the meals and accomodations on whatever number of days that produces.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

It doesn't have to be that arbitrary. File up Google maps, enter the starting and ending points, and use that estimate for the kilometres.


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

Distance, yes, but how many kilometres per day for that pesky denominator? Say it is 2200 kilometres. A pair of crazy kids could drive straight in not much more than a day. A dawdling granny (of working age, of course) prone to driving fatigue might take 3+ days. One could use a ballpark figure based on the distance/days of the actual trip. 

The real-world answer seems to be to just come up with something reasonable and then fight it out with CRA if they ever ask for details.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

As you know, the key is to be "reasonable." I'm not going to drive 2200 km straight through. I'd probably take exactly twice as much time as the 22-year-old.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

There doesn't seem to be an answer in CRA's guides. Logically the taxpayer should not be subsidizing OP's holiday, so the simplest solution would seem to be to prorate all expenses (mileage; meals; accommodation) by the ratio of the (shortest travel distance)/(total distance travelled). This would not deal with the situation where claimant spent an inordinate number of days sightseeing.

I know in my government travel days compensation for mileage on a relocation was based on tables of driving distances between cities, not on an actual mileage record.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

NorthernRaven said:


> Distance, yes, but how many kilometres per day for that pesky denominator? Say it is 2200 kilometres. A pair of crazy kids could drive straight in not much more than a day. A dawdling granny (of working age, of course) prone to driving fatigue might take 3+ days. One could use a ballpark figure based on the distance/days of the actual trip.
> 
> The real-world answer seems to be to just come up with something reasonable and then fight it out with CRA if they ever ask for details.


You have a great skill of making easy things complicated 

This is truly very simple


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

Homerhomer said:


> This is truly very simple


Here's a hypothetical trip (I just made it up) from Winnipeg to Vancouver, 8 days, 3800km (direct route, 2300km):

Day 1: Winnipeg-Miles City, MT. 960km, Motel $51.
Day 2: Miles-Jackson, WY. 700km, Hotel $122.
Day 3: no travel. Hotel $123.
Day 4: Jackson-Salt Lake City. 450km, Hotel $94.
Day 5: no travel. Hotel $95.
Day 6: Salt Lake-Pendleton, OR. 900km, Hotel $56.
Day 7: Pendleton-Portland. 350km, Hotel $97.
Day 8: Portland-Vancouver. 500km, Hotel $108.

That should be all the info needed to fill out page 2 of the T1-M form. Line 2 is 2300 * $0.475/km = $1092.50. All that is left is:

*Line 3*, Accommodation. Need a dollar figure.
*Line 4*, Meals. Need a number of days to multiply by the $51/day for the simplified method.

Anyone who'd like, feel free to post your two numbers, and your reasoning. I'm not being obtuse - it's *not* as obvious as it might seem (and if it weren't for the simplified method, it would be far worse).


----------

