Gray,
D.J.:—
This
is
an
application
for
judicial
review
of
the
decision
of
the
Honourable
Judge
M.J.
Bonner
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
made
on
March
18,
1992
dismissing
an
appeal
of
an
assessment
of
income
tax
by
the
applicant
for
the
1988
taxation
year.
The
applicant,
during
the
1988
taxation
year,
held
the
office
of
"commended
worker"
in
the
Plymouth
Brethren
Assembly
or
church.
His
work
was
not
confined
to
meeting
the
spiritual
needs
of
that
assembly,
however.
He
preached
at
other
chapels
as
well,
lectured
at
Bible
School,
spent
143
hours
counselling
members
of
other
congregations,
and
gave
147
sermons
to
other
congregations.
The
$27,755
that
he
received
from
the
Erindale
Bible
Chapel
was
made
up
of
two
components:
(a)
14,640
allocated
by
the
elders
of
Erindale
Bible
Chapel
and
(b)
the
balance
being
the
total
voluntary
contributions
made
by
members
of
the
Erindale
Bible
Chapel
congregation
through
envelopes
on
which
the
applicant's
name
was
endorsed.
The
applicant
claimed
at
trial
that
the
balance
of
the
revenues,
approximately
$54,500
came
as
reported
in
his
return
of
income
from
self-employment,
in
effect
as
an
itinerant
preacher.
In
his
return
of
income
for
1988,
the
applicant
reported
$27,755
received
by
him
from
Erindale
Bible
Chapel
as
income
from
office
or
employment.
As
well,
he
reported
gross
professional
income
of
$54,494.83
and
net
professional
income
of
$32,034.27.
The
amount
of
the
deduction
claimed
under
paragraph
8(1
)(c)
was
$18,600.
Paragraph
8(1
)(c)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
"Act")
reads
thus:
8(1)
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
or
such
part
of
the
following
amounts
as
may
reasonably
be
regarded
as
applicable
thereto:
(c)
where
the
taxpayer
is
a
member
of
the
clergy
or
of
a
religious
order
or
a
regular
minister
of
a
religious
denomination,
and
is
in
charge
of,
or
ministering
to
a
diocese,
parish
or
congregation,
or
engaged
exclusively
in
full-time
administrative
service
by
appointment
of
a
religious
order
or
religious
denomination,
an
amount
equal
to.
.
.
.
(ii)
rent
paid
by
him
for
a
residence
or
other
living
accommodation
rented
and
occupied
by
him,
or
the
fair
rental
value
of
a
residence
or
other
living
accommodation
owned
and
occupied
by
him,
during
the
year
but
not,
in
either
case,
exceeding
his
remuneration
from
his
office
or
employment
as
described
in
subparagraph
(i).
.
.
.
The
word
"office"
is
defined
in
subsection
248(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
in
part
in
these
words:
“office”
means
the
position
of
an
individual
entitling
him
to
a
fixed
or
ascertainable
stipend
or
remuneration.
.
.
.
The
learned
trial
judge
in
his
reasons
for
judgment
said:
I
cannot
accept
that
the
total
amount
received
by
the
appellant
as
commended
worker
from
such
sources
of
support
was
ascertainable
within
the
meaning
of
the
section
248
definition.
He
then
went
on
to
quote
from
his
own
reasons
for
judgment
in
Ralston
v.
M.N.R.
(May
12,
1989),
Tax
Court
of
Canada,
(unreported)
(page
3):
Remuneration
is
not
ascertainable
within
the
meaning
of
the
definition
simply
because
the
total
receipts
can
be
determined
by
addition
at
year
end
of
the
fees
received
during
the
year.
In
Merchants.
The
Queen,
[1984]
C.T.C.
253,
84
D.T.C.
6215,
Madame
Justice
Reed,
in
the
course
of
a
review
of
the
jurisprudence
with
regard
to
the
meaning
of
the
word
“ascertainable”
said
the
following
at
page
256
(D.T.C.
6217):
I
take
that
word
to
mean
that
the
amount
to
be
paid
is
capable
of
being
made
certain,
or
capable
of
being
determined
but
not
that
a
definite
sum
be
known
by
the
office
holder
at
the
commencement
of
holding
office.
The
word
has
to
have
some
meaning
beyond
"fixed"
or
else
it
is
completely
redundant.
In
this
case,
members
of
the
congregation
make
contributions
which
form
a
very
substantial
part
of
the
appellant's
remuneration
and
they
render
the
total
amount
uncertain
except
by
addition
at
year
end.
The
position
is
therefore
not,
in
my
view,
an
office.
.
.
.
In
my
view
the
learned
trial
judge
erred
in
his
finding
that
the
applicant's
position
was
not
encompassed
by
the
definition
of
"office"
as
set
out,
supra.
It
is
evident
from
the
Erindale
Bible
Chapel
letter
of
April
24,
1988,
to
the
applicant
that
the
applicant
had
fixed
remuneration
of
$14,640
for
1988.
The
letter
reads
in
part:
This
letter
will
confirm
the
financial
commitment
of
the
Chapel
to
your
support
for
1988.
The
elders
have
allocated
$14,640
to
your
ministry
during
1988
with
payments
of
$3,660
for
each
quarter.
.
.
.
The
additional
money
which
the
applicant
received
cannot
be
said
to
have
been
derived
from
an
"office"
because
it
was
not
“fixed
or
ascertainable”
pursuant
to
subsection
248(1),
supra.
Hence
the
applicant
is
entitled
to
make
a
deduction
under
paragraph
8(1
)(c)
which
is
not
in
excess
of
the
amount
of
the
ascertainable
remuneration
from
his
office,
namely
the
sum
of
$14,640.
The
appeal
is
therefore
allowed
in
part
and
the
assessment
for
the
1988
taxation
year
is
remitted
to
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
for
reassessment
on
the
basis
that
the
applicant
is
entitled
to
deduct
the
sum
of
$14,640
from
his
income
for
the
taxation
year
1988,
pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
paragraph
8(1
)(c)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
Appeal
allowed
in
part.
Email this Content