Citation: 2012TCC16
Date: 20120110
Docket: 2011-1456(IT)I
BETWEEN:
MAVIS TIDD,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered orally from the bench on December 8, 2011,
in Toronto, Ontario)
V.A. Miller J.
[1]
The issue raised in
this appeal is whether the Appellant is entitled to a deduction of $10,000 in
2006, 2007 and 2008 for a clergy residence under paragraph 8(1)(c) of
the Income Tax Act (the Act). The Minister of National Revenue
(the “Minister”) denied the deduction on the basis that the Appellant did not
meet the status or the function test set out in paragraph 8(1)(c).
[2]
It is the Appellant’s position
that, in terms of the legislation, she was a member of the clergy for the Toronto International Celebration Church
(the “TICC”); and, as such, she ministered to that congregation.
[3]
The Appellant and Peter Karl
Youngren testified at the hearing. Mr. Youngren described the structure of the
TICC and the Appellant’s role within that church. He was senior pastor of the
TICC until December 31, 2009. I will refer to him as Mr. Youngren so as not to
confuse him with his father who is also Pastor Peter Youngren.
[4]
It was Mr. Youngren’s evidence
that his father, Pastor Peter Youngren, commenced the Niagara Celebration
Church in St. Catharines, Ontario in 1990. In 1999, Pastor Youngren decided to found a
church in Toronto. The TICC opened its doors in September 2000 and the
first service was September 10, 2000. Its congregation grew quickly and today
it numbers approximately 2000 individuals.
[5]
Mr. Youngren was in charge of the
day to day operations at TICC and during the relevant period, he was the senior
pastor and the spiritual leader. I am not sure if he or his father was the
chairman of the board with the TICC.
[6]
The TICC is an evangelical church.
Mr. Youngren described the church as being a part of the non-denominational
movement away from the tradition where there is a head minister. The structure
of the TICC is one where all members of the church minister together. There are
no titles and, in fact, many in the congregation did not call him “Pastor”.
[7]
In the TICC, the Board of
Directors only oversaw the finances of the church. Mr. Youngren, as pastor, had
the spiritual vision for the TICC. He chose the pastors, the leaders and the
ministers of the TICC. To be chosen, they had to exemplify Christian leadership
characteristics according to his vision. He stated that he was looking to see
if the person had the “fruit of the spirit”.
[8]
Mr. Youngren brought in people
from the church in Niagara to show the congregation of the TICC how to work
with the various people in their community. He said that they had a model of
Christian leadership and fellowship in the Niagara Celebration Church and they brought this model to the TICC.
[9]
According to Mr. Youngren’s
description of the structure of the TICC, I find that there was a hierarchy
within the TICC. It was, in ascending order, (a) the first time visitors, (b)
the regular congregation, (c) the volunteers, (d) the leaders, (e) the
ministers and then (f) the pastors. Mr. Youngren as senior pastor had the final
say in everything.
[10]
The TICC was divided into 40
segments; some of which were: small group ministry, music ministry, senior
ministry, hospital ministry, phone ministry, greeter ministry, visitation
ministry, etc. Each ministry was overseen by a leader who was in charge of
ensuring that the ministry ran smoothly and had sufficient volunteers to carry
out its mandate.
[11]
The Appellant joined TICC in 2000.
Mr. Youngren described her as charismatic, magnetic and having the “fruit”.
Initially, the Appellant did volunteer work within the TICC. In 2003, she was
employed by TICC on a full time basis as executive assistant to the senior
pastor. In her position, she worked Monday to Thursday. However, she also
worked Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday evenings to assist with the computer
classes which TICC held. By 2004 or 2005, she was recognized by the
congregation as a minister in the church.
[12]
The Appellant oversaw various
ministries and when he was Senior Pastor with TICC, Mr. Youngren summarized the
Appellant’s duties with the TICC. On December 21, 2009, he wrote:
Mavis Tidd is
an Ordained Gospel Worker with the Toronto International Celebration Church.
The following
is a summary of her duties at the church:
(a) Vets
people before scheduling appointments with an appropriate pastor.
(b) Prayer/counseling:
Works with Pastoral Care during times of high volume overload in praying with
and counseling callers.
(c) Hospital
Ministry: Visits and offers comfort and prayer to those in hospital. She also
visits housebound members.
(d) Greeter
Ministry: selects Greeter volunteers from members and visitors. Prepare greeter
manual and trains new greeters. Creates greeter schedules on a monthly basis
and arranges for a staff member or office volunteer to contact persons
scheduled on a weekly basis. Also schedules greeters for other church
functions.
(e) Visitation
Ministry: Coordinates with visitation team by providing them with names of
members who are housebound.
(f)
Supervises office and food bank volunteers.
(g) Manages
all water baptisms and baby dedications.
(h) Manages
the property, church parking facitities, rentals and associated staff.
(i) Community involvement: Manages and schedules computer classes,
manages and coordinates the food bank and, at Christmas time, manages the
turkey and food basket give-aways. She is the liaison between the church and
Second Harvest [delivers food for our Hope Bank (non-perishable) and for our
downtown outreach] and the 700 Club.
[13]
At the hearing, Mr. Youngren said
that the Appellant was his ‘right hand person’; his ‘first line of defence’. It
was his evidence that to oversee a program meant that you were a minister in
the church.
[14]
I note that in his letter of
December 21, 2009, Mr. Youngren referred to the Appellant as an ‘Ordained
Gospel Worker’. However, throughout his evidence at the hearing, he referred to
her as a ‘minister’.
[15]
It was Mr. Youngren’s evidence
that there was no formal ordination ceremony in the TICC. When one became a
minister with the TICC, their name was listed in the Sunday Bulletin and they
were acknowledged from the stage as being a minister.
[16]
During the relevant period there
were 20 staff members. Mr. Youngren stated that 10 of them were ministers or
clergy.
Analysis
[17]
In accordance with the Appellant’s
position, the relevant part of paragraph 8(1)(c) reads as follows:
8. (1) Deductions
allowed -- In computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year from an
office or employment, there may be deducted such of the following amounts as
are wholly applicable to that source…
(c) clergy residence -- where, in the year, the taxpayer
(i) is a member
of the clergy or [ ] a regular minister of a religious denomination, and
(ii)
is
(B) ministering to a [ ] or congregation
[18]
The first question is whether the
Appellant was a member of the clergy of TICC. The second question is whether
she ministered to a congregation.
[19]
According to the caselaw, it is
not necessary that an individual be ordained to be a clergy. See Kraft v.
Minister of National Revenue[1].
Whether one is a member of the clergy of a religious denomination depends on
the practices and rituals of that denomination. At paragraph 13 of Kraft,
Bowman T.C.J. said:
Whether one is
member of the clergy in a particular church depends upon the procedures and
rituals of that church. It requires a formal act of recognition whereby that
person is set apart from the other members of the church as a spiritual
leader (emphasis added). It does not require necessarily that it be done by
someone higher up the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Some churches recognize no such
hierarchy. It may be done by the congregation. It requires a formal, serious
and long-term commitment to the ministry. If these elements exist, whether or
not the particular denomination calls the formal ritual "ordination",
the person accorded that status by the church is in my view a member of the
clergy.
[20]
The evidence presented established
that the Appellant was set apart from the other members of TICC as a leader.
Her name was listed in the Sunday Bulletin and the TICC acknowledged her from
the stage as being a minister. She was recognized by the congregation as a
minister.
[21]
I questioned whether the evidence
established that the Appellant was set apart from the other members of the
congregation as a ‘spiritual leader’.
[22]
What is a ‘spiritual leader’? I
take it that a spiritual leader is one who is aimed not so much at directing
people or organizing people but is aimed at changing people. It is someone who
not only prays with those in need but offers them spiritual guidance.
[23]
It was Mr. Youngren’s evidence
that the Appellant “did everything that he did except give sermons on Sundays”.
She applied Biblical leadership to each of the ministries which she oversaw.
She brought peace into the homes she visited and into the lives of the people
that she encountered. She offered spiritual guidance to the members of the
congregation of TICC.
[24]
The Appellant oversaw the leaders
in the TICC. I find that she was a spiritual leader in the TICC and she was
recognized as such by the congregation and the senior pastor of the TICC.
[25]
It is my view that the Appellant
was a ‘clergy’ for the purposes of paragraph 8(1)(c) of the Act.
[26]
The second question that must be
determined goes to the function part of the test in paragraph 8(1)(c).
Was the Appellant ministering to a congregation?
[27]
In McGorman v. Canada[2], Bowman T.C.J.
interpreted the term “ministering” in these words:
56 His work
encompassed everything that is traditionally done by a minister or priest who
has one church. "To minister" means merely "to serve", or
"to attend to the needs of". A physician or nurse ministers to the
physical needs of a patient. A clergyman, minister, priest or spiritual
counsellor ministers to the spiritual needs of a congregation, collectively or
individually. Ministers are, however, called on to do much more than offer
spiritual guidance. They provide psychological and marital counselling. They advise
on family and career related matters. It is to the church that people turn when
faced with the infinite variety of problems that arise in life. Ministering is
a very broad concept, particularly in the context of the work of a person of
the cloth. There is no question that Mr. Miller was ministering to the persons
with whom he dealt.
[28]
The Canada Revenue Agency has
adopted this interpretation of the term ministering. See IT-141R at paragraphs
13 and 14 which read as follows:
13. “Ministering” is a very broad concept of serving or attending to
the needs of a congregation, diocese or parish, or its individual members. This
should be looked at within the context of the religious organization's
practices and expectations. If a person who meets the status test is employed
within a congregation, he or she is considered to be ministering to a
congregation if he or she is fulfilling a pastoral or ministerial role in the
manner requested by that congregation. If a person who meets the status test is
employed by a religious organization outside the order or religious
denomination, he or she is considered to be ministering to a congregation such
as a church, a chaplaincy audience, or a disadvantaged group if he or she is
fulfilling a pastoral or ministerial role consistent with the religious
ministry of the organization in which such person has status.
14. Persons who meet the status test who minister on a part-time or
assistant basis and those performing specialized ministering satisfy the
function test. As long as ministering to congregations is an integral part of
their employment responsibilities and expectations, that activity will qualify.
[29]
I find that the Appellant was
ministering to the congregation at TICC. She was fulfilling the ministerial
role in the manner requested by the congregation and by the senior pastor at
the TICC. Ministering to the congregation at the TICC was an integral part of
the Appellant’s employment responsibilities and expectations.
[30]
For all of these reasons, the
appeal is allowed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of January 2012.
“V.A. Miller”
Email this Content