Date: 19980403
Docket: 97-1243-IT-I
BETWEEN:
DONALD R. RICHMOND,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons for Judgment
Bell, J.T.C.C.
ISSUE:
[1] The issue is whether the Appellant received a benefit in
the amount of $1,800 in his 1993 taxation year under paragraph
6(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act
("Act").
FACTS:
[2] The Appellant was employed as Commissioner of Community
Services for the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. In 1993,
his employer provided him with a reserved parking space at no
charge to him. The Appellant testified that he lived very close
to Metro Hall and that he only used his car when it was necessary
to attend business meetings away from his place of work. He said
that he lived close to Metro Hall and mostly walked to work. He
said that he would use the space one day per week at a maximum.
He had use of the parking space, with card accessibility, 24
hours a day, seven days a week.
[3] The Minister of National Revenue ("Minister")
reassessed the Appellant for his 1993 taxation year adding the
amount of $1,800 to his income as a benefit conferred by his
employer. One of the Minister's assumptions upon which the
reassessment was said to be made, contained in the Reply to the
Notice of Appeal, was that the fair market value of the benefit
was determined based on the value of an equivalent unreserved
parking space in the near neighbourhood.
[4] An official of the Department of National Revenue
("Department") stated that he examined a number of
parking places around Metro Hall. One was at Roy Thompson Hall,
the cost of which was $195 per month. He said that the Toronto
Parking Authority in the neighbourhood charged $150 per month. He
further said that an outside parking stall on Wellington Street,
cost $160 per month. Such official further testified that the
charge at the Sky Dome was $80 per month with parking restricted
to 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. from Monday to Friday and restricted on
"game days". He said that there were no reserved spots
in the Sky Dome.
[5] The Appellant submitted that a benefit not used is not a
benefit received. He submitted also that he should only have been
assessed a benefit of $360 because he only used the parking spot,
at most, for 20 percent of the year.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
[6] This issue was considered by Judge Rip in Soper v.
M.N.R., 87 DTC 522. In that case a corporation purchased
three houses in Florida and later sold same. During the years in
question, the Appellant, the controlling shareholder of the
corporation, was able to use one of the properties whenever she
wished. She chose to use it for a few weeks only each year. The
issue was whether the benefit conferred on her was equal to the
fair rental value for the whole year or only for such time as she
actually used the premises. This Court found that the Minister
was correct in determining the quantum of benefit by using the
fair rental value approach because the properties were clearly
being maintained for the shareholder all year round and she
received substantially all of the benefit to the exclusion of
everyone else.
[7] Whether the Appellant used the property is of little
consequence. It was available to him and was accordingly a
benefit to him. He adduced no evidence to establish that the
value of the assigned exclusive parking spot was less than that
assessed by the Minister. In the circumstances, the Appellant
cannot succeed in his appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada this 3rd day of April, 1998.
"R.D. Bell"
J.T.C.C.
Email this Content