D
E
Taylor:—This
is
an
appeal
heard
in
Vancouver,
British
Columbia,
on
May
6,
1981
against
an
income
tax
assessment
for
the
year
1977
in
which
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
included
in
the
taxpayer’s
income
as
a
benefit
under
paragraph
6(1
)(a)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
(SC
1970-71-72,
c
63,
as
amended)
an
amount
of
$1,965
representing
the
value
to
him
of
a
trip
taken
to
Japan.
The
basic
facts
as
outlined
by
the
appellant
were:
—
the
taxpayer
was
invited
to
Japan
by
the
Nisson
Automobile
Company
(Canada)
Ltd
(Nisson)
to
view
the
manufacturing
facilities
of
that
company.
The
trip
in
respect
of
costs
and
time
spent
in
Japan
was
entirely
of
a
business
nature.
—
the
taxpayer
acknowledged
that
some
portion
of
the
expenses
($550)
is
of
a
personal
nature.
—
The
benefit
deemed
by
the
Minister
to
be
taxable
is
excessive.
The
contentions
of
the
respondent
were:
—
that
the
appellant
was
the
(part)
owner
of
a
Datsun
Dealership
(Southside
Datsun
Ltd
of
Vancouver,
British
Columbia);
—
that
Nisson
Automobile
Company
(Canada)
Ltd
was
the
appellant’s
supplier
and
that
in
1977
Nisson
gave
the
appellant
a
trip
to
Japan;
—
that
the
trip
to
Japan
was
a
personal
benefit
to
the
appellant,
and
that
no
part
of
the
trip
involved
business
activities.
At
the
hearing
it
was
evident
that
the
amount
of
$550
to
which
reference
had
been
made
above
by
the
taxpayer
had
not
been
included
by
him
as
a
benefit
at
the
time
of
filing
the
tax
return,
but
resulted
from
a
T4A
remuneration
form
prepared
by
Nisson
at
a
later
date.
The
appellant
accepted
that
this
amount
should
be
considered
personal.
Mr
Affettuso
filed
with
the
Board
a
copy
of
the
schedule
he
had
followed
while
in
Japan.
It
certainly
contained
some
elements
that
could
have
a
bearing
on
his
business
activities,
but
it
was
also
just
as
evident
that
a
substantial
portion
of
the
several
days
spent
in
Japan
had
been
on
more
personal
and
pleasurable
pursuits.
The
counsel
for
the
Minister
referenced
the
case
of
Henry
O
Waffle
v
MNR,
[1968]
CTC
572;
69
DTC
5007,
as
support
for
the
assessment.
In
Waffle
(supra),
the
taxpayer’s
trip
was
a
Caribbean
cruise
—
hardly
related
directly
with
selling
automobiles,
although
the
appellant
may
have
made
some
effort
to
relate
it
indirectly
to
business.
I
am
satisfied
that
in
the
instant
case
the
appellant
did
conduct
some
activities
which
might
have
some
relationship
to
his
regular
employment
as
a
salesman
at
Southside
and/or
his
position
as
a
director
and
50%
shareholder
in
that
company.
Nevertheless,
according
to
the
itinerary
filed,
the
major
thrust
of
the
trip
was
to
visit
sites
and
places
quite
unrelated
to
his
business,
while
the
award
of
the
trip
was
founded
in
the
results
of
his
employment
or
business
endeavours.
That
is
a
benefit
as
foreseen
under
paragraph
6(1
)(a)
of
the
Act,
and
the
value
of
it
is
taxable
in
his
hands.
The
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content