- within Tax topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in Canada
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy industries
Overview: The 40-Kilometre Test: Measuring Moving Expenses in a Modern World
The case of De Kruyff v The King 2025 TCC 116 discusses when a taxpayer was entitled to deduct moving expenses on his income tax return. Under Canadian tax law, you can generally deduct moving costs if you make an eligible relocation, which includes moving at least 40 kilometres closer to your job.
The key question here was simple in theory but tricky in practice: How do you measure that 40 kilometres, and which route should be used? The Tax Court had to decide whether modern tools like Google Maps can be used to answer that question—and if so, how.
The facts of the case in De Kruyff v The King
The taxpayer worked as an investment manager with fixed work hours tied to the stock market. In 2020, he moved to a new home in order to shorten his daily commute to work in Toronto.
He spent about $130,000 on moving expenses and claimed them as a deduction on his tax return. The case record did not specify how the moving expenses were incurred, because the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) did not dispute that: the move had occurred; the expenses were incurred; amount of the expenses; or the supporting evidence for the expenses. As a result, the court did not make any findings as to what constituted those expenses.
However, the CRA denied the deduction, regardless. Their only reason was that, in their view, the taxpayer's move did not reduce his commute by the required 40 kilometres.
Both the taxpayer and the CRA used Google Maps to calculate the distance—but they got different answers.
- The taxpayer measured the distance during normal commuting hours, when traffic was heavy. Google Maps showed that drivers would normally take a longer western route, and that this route shortened his commute by more than 40 kilometres after the move.
- The CRA agent, however, ran Google Maps from a different time zone and did not account for local rush-hour traffic. This produced a shorter eastern route that did not meet the 40-kilometre requirement.
The legal issue in De Kruyff v The King, how to determine 40 km
The Court had to decide whether the taxpayer had proven that his move brought him at least 40 kilometres closer to work, using what the Income Tax Act calls the "shortest normal route."
In plain terms:
Which route would an ordinary commuter usually take under real-world conditions?
The Court's Decision in De Kruyff v The King in favour of the taxpayer
The Tax Court ruled in favour of the taxpayer. It accepted that the route identified by Google Maps during actual commuting hours was the shortest normal route used by most drivers. The CRA's calculation was rejected because it was based on incorrect assumptions about time and traffic.
The taxpayer was allowed to deduct his moving expenses, and the Court ordered the CRA to pay his legal costs.
The Reasons for the Decision in De Kruyff v The King
The judge explained that the phrase "shortest normal route" has always been interpreted using common sense. It is not just about drawing a straight line on a map, and it is not based on one person's personal preference either. Instead, it reflects what an average driver would normally do.
What made this case different was the use of Google Maps instead of paper maps or guesswork.
The Court made three important points:
- Google Maps is acceptable evidence: Parliament never said that distance must be measured using a specific method. Courts are therefore allowed to rely on reliable, widely used tools—especially ones that reflect how people actually travel today.
- The tool must be used properly: The CRA's evidence failed because it did not reflect real commuting conditions. Using traffic data without matching the correct local time produced misleading results.
- Technology should reflect reality, not replace judgment: The judge did not treat Google Maps as automatically decisive. Instead, it was treated as a helpful tool that still needed to be assessed carefully and logically.
The Legal Significance of the Court's Decision in De Kruyff v The King
At first glance, this may look like a small technical dispute—but it has broader importance. The decision confirms that modern, AI-driven tools can be used in court when they help show how people behave in real life. The law itself did not change, but the way evidence is gathered has evolved.
For taxpayers, Canadian tax lawyers and the CRA alike, the message is clear:
- Digital tools like Google Maps can provide a useful baseline.
- But small errors—such as using the wrong time zone or unrealistic assumptions—can undermine an entire case.
More broadly, the decision shows that courts are willing to adapt to technological change without abandoning legal reasoning or common sense.
Conclusion: Modern Mapping Tools Within Traditional Tax Law Principles
De Kruyff v The King confirms that commuting distance under tax law should be measured in a realistic, practical way. By accepting properly used Google Maps data, the Tax Court ensured that the law keeps pace with how people actually travel today—while still applying long-standing legal principles.
Pro Tax Tips: How Canadian Taxpayers Can Protect Moving Expense Claims
Canadian taxpayers should approach deductions that depend on factual thresholds—such as moving expenses—with careful, evidence-based preparation. When relying on digital tools like Google Maps, to claim moving expense deductions, you should ensure that they are used in a way that reflects real-world conditions, including typical commuting times and traffic patterns.
Keep clear records, screenshots, and explanations showing how distances were measured and why the chosen route represents the shortest normal route. Do not assume the CRA's calculation is definitive; if their assumptions are unrealistic or flawed, you can challenge them successfully with credible, well-reasoned evidence. An experienced Canadian tax lawyer can assist you in this regard.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs):
What does "shortest normal route" mean?
It means the route that an ordinary commuter would typically use under real-world conditions, not a theoretical or traffic-free route.
Is Google Maps an acceptable tool for calculating commuting distance when determining eligibility for the moving expense deduction?
Yes. In De Kruyff v The King, the Tax Court confirmed that Google Maps or other similar technologies can be used to calculate commuting distance for moving expense deductions, provided it is used properly. The Court accepted Google Maps as reliable evidence because the Income Tax Act does not prescribe a specific method for measuring distance. However, the tool must reflect real-world commuting conditions—such as typical traffic patterns and correct local timing—and the results must align with common sense and ordinary commuter behavior.
How does the Tax Court assess alternative or shorter routes when determining eligibility for the moving expense deduction?
The Tax Court does not focus on the route a particular taxpayer personally prefers, nor on a hypothetical route that exists only under ideal conditions. Instead, the Court applies a common-sense standard based on the "shortest normal route," meaning the route that an ordinary commuter would typically use under real-world conditions. Routes that appear shorter on a map but are rarely used due to traffic, timing, or practical constraints are not determinative. The assessment centres on realistic, everyday travel patterns rather than theoretical distance alone.
What Kind of Moving Expenses Are Deductible?
If your relocation is eligible, you can deduct most of the expenses you incured to move yourself, your family and your household items. Such deductible expenses include:
- Transportation and storage of household items
- Travel expenses to the new home including vehicle, meals, and accommodation
- Temporary living expenses (up to 15 days) for meals and temporary lodging near the old or new home
- Lease cancellation costs for the old residence
- Incidental moving costs, including: Address changes on legal documents; Replacement of driver's licences and non-commercial vehicle permits (excluding insurance); Utility disconnections and hook-ups
- Costs to maintain the old home while vacant (maximum $5,000) after the move and while reasonable efforts were made to sell, including: Interest; Property taxes; Insurance premiums; Heating and utilities
- Costs of selling the old home, including: Advertising; Legal or notary fees; Real estate commissions; Mortgage prepayment penalties
- Costs of buying the new home, if the old home was sold due to the move, including: Legal or notary fees; Land transfer or title registration taxes (excluding GST/HST)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
