Although
the
facts
differ
slightly
from
those
in
Phillips
v.
M.N.R.,
[1993]
2
C.T.C.
27,
at
the
request
of
counsel
for
all
parties
I
heard
both
cases
and
reserved
judgment
in
this
matter
until
the
conclusion
of
argument
in
the
Phillips
case.
Counsel
for
the
Minister
also
acknowledges
that
despite
the
factual
differences,
the
decision
in
principle
should
be
the
same
in
both
cases.
In
the
present
case,
the
parties
filed
the
following
agreed
statement
of
facts:
1.
The
issue
in
this
appeal
concerns
the
nature
of
a
$22,500
payment
received
by
the
defendant
in
August
1985
from
his
employer
at
that
time,
Equipment
Planning
Associates.
2.
Prior
to
the
summer
of
1985,
the
defendant
resided
with
his
family
in
an
area
of
Edmonton,
Alberta
known
as
Westridge.
3.
The
family
home
in
Edmonton
was
a
two
storey
house
with
approximately
2,000
square
feet
of
living
area
consisting
of
four
bedrooms,
a
living
room,
a
family
room,
three
baths
and
a
semi-finished
basement.
The
residence
had
attached
toit
a
two
car
garage.
The
residence
was
constructed
in
or
about
1975
and
the
defendant
was
the
original
occupant.
4.
The
defendant
sold
the
Edmonton
property
in
July
1985
for
proceeds
of
$118,000.
The
defendant
had
approximately
$70,000
equity
in
the
property
at
that
time.
5.
While
in
Edmonton,
the
defendant
was
employed
by
the
IBI
Group
as
a
management
consultant
providing
advice
for
hospitals
and
in
other
health
related
areas.
Prior
to
leaving
the
IBI
Group
in
1985,
the
defendant
had
an
annual
salary
of
approximately
$44,000.
6.
The
defendant
was
introduced
to
Equipment
Planning
Associates
Ltd.
("EPA")
while
working
with
the
IBI
Group
on
a
project
for
the
Alberta
Ministry
of
Health.
EPA,
based
out
of
Chicago,
U.S.A.
with
its
Canadian
office
being
in
Toronto,
Ontario,
was
retained
by
the
IBI
Group
as
equipment
consultants
for
that
project
which
was
completed
in
the
beginning
of
1983.
7.
In
the
summer
of
1984,
the
defendant
was
approached
by
EPA
for
the
purpose
of
developing
their
western
Canadian
market.
In
January
of
1985,
EPA
extended
an
offer
of
employment
to
the
defendant
for
the
position
of
assistant
vice-president
(the"Edmonton
Position”).
The
salary
was
to
be
$50,000
per
annum,
plus
benefits
and
a
marketing
bonus.
EPA's
place
of
business
in
Edmonton
was
to
be
based
out
of
the
defendant's
residence.
8.
Within
a
month
of
that
offer,
EPA
proposed
that
the
defendant
relocate
to
the
Toronto
office
rather
than
carry
on
their
business
out
of
Edmonton.
9.
Negotiations
ensued
between
the
defendant
and
EPA
regarding
the
terms
of
his
employment
in
light
of
the
proposed
relocation
from
Edmonton
to
Toronto.
In
February
1985,
an
offer
of
employment
was
extended
to
the
defendant
for
the
position
of
vice-president
based
in
Toronto
(the"Toronto
Position”).
In
addition
to
the
benefits
of
the
Edmonton
Position,
the
defendant
was
entitled
to
the
following:
(a)
a
salary
increase
of
$5,000;
(b)
10
shares
of
non-voting,
class
C,
EPA
stock;
(c)
an
allowance
of
$22,500
to
compensate
for
the
higher
housing
prices
in
Toronto
as
compared
to
Edmonton.
10.
The
said
$22,500
was
an
amount
negotiated
between
EPA
and
the
defendant.
The
defendant
had
requested
$37,000
as
this
was
his
estimate
of
the
increased
cost
of
purchasing
a
similar
house
in
a
comparable
neighbourhood
in
the
Toronto
area,
based
on
the
defendant's
review
of
real
estate
listings.
EPA
refused
to
pay
the
full
dollar
for
dollar
amount
requested
by
the
defendant
and
an
arbitrary
amount
of
$22,500
was
agreed
upon.
11.
The
defendant
was
to
only
receive
the
said
$22,500
if
he
purchased
a
Toronto
area
home
which
exceeded
the
value
of
the
Edmonton
home
by
$22,500.
12.
In
April
1985
the
defendant
purchased
from
a
developer
a
new
home
in
the
Town
of
Markham,
a
suburb
of
Toronto,
and
took
possession
later
that
year.
The
defendant
received
the
said
$22,500
from
EPA
in
August
1985
and
that
amount
was
applied
towards
the
purchase
of
the
Toronto
home.
13.
The
Toronto
house,
at
3000
square
feet
was
larger
than
the
Edmonton
house,
described
in
paragraph
3
above.
The
cost
of
the
Toronto
house
was
$217,200.
The
source
of
funds
for
the
purchase
price
was
as
follows:
|
Equity
from
sale
of
Edmonton
home
|
$
70,000
|
|
Personal
loan
from
the
defendant's
parents-in-law
|
$
44,700
|
|
Mortgage
|
$
80,000
|
|
EPA
relocation
allowance
|
$
22,500
|
|
TOTAL
|
$217,200
|
14.
From
March
25,
1985
and
throughout
the
rest
of
that
calendar
year
the
defendant
was
in
the
employment
of
EPA.
Accordingly,
for
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
Phillips
decision,
dated
May
6,
1993,
I
concur
with
the
disposition
of
this
matter
by
the
learned
Tax
Court
judge.
This
appeal
is
therefore
dismissed
with
costs.
Email this Content