# Supervision costs - is there a way to deduct these from employment income??



## coffeetrain (Dec 16, 2013)

I posted this question about a month ago with no response yet...anyone one to take a stab at it?? I won't hold you liable 

My wife is employed by a non-profit and is in the process of becoming a registered psychologist. She is currently considered a provisional psychologist and must get a certain number of hours of supervision from an outside psychologist (like 2 hr/week for 40 weeks) as part of the requirements to become registered. 

Currently she pays this from her own pocket with her supervisor declaring it as income.

Is there some provision for her (my wife) to deduct these costs against her own income? As she is considered an employee of this NPO, she is just getting T4 income?

Please advise. Thanks.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Short answer is no. These are considered to be non-deductible capital expenses. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tp/it357r2/it357r2-e.html


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Could you get a invoice from the psychologist saying it was a training requirement for your professional designation and claim it as a part time tuition credit?

This year my girlfriend (well, me ) claimed some re-certification courses needed for her job and CRA accepted it as a tuition credit. This seems similar...


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Um, that doesn't make it deductible. Yes, you could do that. No, it doesn't make the expense deductible. Take a look at the bulletin I linked; it is very very clear.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Ok.

A credit is better than nothing though. Should I not have suggested it because the title asks "is there a way to deduct..." instead of "can I get a tax refund for..." ? :confused2:


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Sorry, I was typing quickly. If you look at the bulletin I linked, the expense specified is not eligible for a tax deduction or a tax credit or any kind of tax benefit.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Quoting from the bulletin: 

Training costs are not deductible as current expenses if they are capital expenditures. They are considered to be capital in nature where the training results in a lasting benefit to the taxpayer, i.e., where *a new skill or qualification* is acquired. Where, on the other hand, the training is taken merely to maintain, update or upgrade an already existing skill or qualification, the related costs are not considered to be capital in nature.

and

Where a training or educational course results in a lasting benefit to the taxpayer, the costs incurred in connection with the course are considered to be capital in nature. The deduction of these capital expenditures as current expenses is disallowed by paragraph 18(1)(b).

and

The following are examples of cases where costs of training are considered to be capital expenditures, the deduction of which is disallowed by paragraph 18(1)(b), because the training is taken to acquire a new skill or qualification:

(a) A medical general practitioner is training to qualify as a specialist.

(b) A lawyer is taking an engineering course that is unrelated to his or her legal practice.

(c) A taxpayer is taking a university or other course leading to a degree or other certificate. (Note, however, that costs incurred in connection with a course of the type described in 4 below will not be disallowed merely because the course is conducted at, or under the sponsorship of, a university.)

(d) A professor employed by a university takes a course during a sabbatical (see also comments regarding duration of training in 5 below) in order to acquire a new skill needed for a sideline business.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Ah. No I am sorry. I didn't read the link. Some hyperlinks don't work from my office computer.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Definitive proof we are both Canadian, eh? Sorry again.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

p.s. Bet you never thought that training could have either a capital or current nature, eh? And that the determination would be so similar to the determination of whether a housing-related expense is current or capital in nature?


----------

