A
J
Frost:—This
is
an
appeal
from
an
income
tax
assessment
dated
February
4,
1969,
with
respect
to
the
appellant’s
1967
taxation
year
wherein
an
amount
of
$487.93
was
added
to
income
as
a
benefit
received,
being
the
value
of
a
trip
to
Greece.
Upon
notice
of
objection
duly
signed
and
filed,
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
reconsidered
the
assessment
and
confirmed
it
on
September
11,
1969.
The
appeal
was
heard
at
Hamilton,
Ontario,
on
November
22,
1971,
by
the
Tax
Appeal
Board
as
it
was
then
constituted,
and
allowed
in
part
from
the
Bench.
The
appellant
attended
a
convention
trip
to
Greece
under
the
auspices
of
Hupp
(Canada)
Limited
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
“Hupp”).
Hupp
are
manufacturers
of
refrigerators,
stoves,
washing
machines
and
air
conditioning
units,
and
plan
yearly
conventions
to
introduce
their
new
range
of
products
for
the
following
year
and
for
the
purpose
of
conducting
sales
meetings
with
their
dealers.
The
appellant
is
an
officer
and
director
of
Frontier
Commercial
Refrigeration
Limited
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
“Frontier”)
and
is
responsible
for
the
general
supervision
of
the
company’s
financial
affairs
but
is
not
directly
responsible
for
sales.
Frontier
is
the
only
independent
wholesale
distributor
of
air
conditioning
products
of
Hupp
in
the
Province
of
Ontario.
The
appellant
testified
as
follows:
Let
me
say
this,
that
we
maybe
handle
anywhere
from
ten
to
fifty
times
as
much
merchandise
in
the
air
conditioning
field
than
the
average
dealer
would
handle
in
all
of
their
products
to
earn,
say,
one
trip.
We
were
told
at
the
beginning
of
each
year
that
on
the
basis
of
what
we
propose
would
be
the
amount
of
our
business
for
that
year,
that
they
would
automatically
make
available
to
us
—
for
our
customers
and
for
us
to
attend
and
look
after
those
customers
—
so
many
trips.
I
believe
I
am
correct
in
saying
that
on
this
trip
the
allocation
to
us
was
twenty.
I
know
it
was
in
that
neighbourhood
or
a
few
more,
but
approximately
twenty
and
this
was
set
a
year
before.
In
other
words,
this
was
set
before
we
had
even
sold
any
of
their
goods
for
the
following
year.
As
the
convention
included
many
of
Frontier’s
regular
customers
and
potential
customers,
it
was
important
for
the
appellant
and
other
chief
executives
of
Frontier
to
attend.
The
appellant
attended
the
convention
at
the
request
of
Frontier
and
as
one
of
its
employees.
The
appellant
testified
that,
apart
from
business,
he
only
had
a
slight
interest
in
taking
a
trip
to
Greece
but,
when
there,
he
did
take
in
a
number
of
the
planned
tours
in
Athens;
that
if
he
had
considered
the
convention
in
the
nature
of
a
pleasure
trip
he
would
have
asked
his
wife
to
accompany
him;
that
he
did
extensive
travelling
for
pleasure,
had
taken
at
least
one
trip
to
a
foreign
country
during
the
past
seven
years
and
usually
spent
close
to
$5,000
a
year
on
pleasure
travel.
He
added
that
he
enjoyed
his
wife’s
company
and
invariably
took
her
along.
Everything
the
appellant
said
was
forthright
and
credible.
He
appealed
his
assessment,
not
because
of
the
tax
involved,
but
as
a
matter
of
principle
and
because
other
employees
might
be
assessed
on
a
somewhat
similar
basis.
There
is
no
question
in
this
case
of
the
appellant
having
earned
an
award.
He
was
simply
requested
to
attend
the
convention
by
the
President
and
General
Manager
of
the
company
for
business
reasons,
which
included
goodwill
and
public
relations.
Despite
the
circumstances
surrounding
this
case,
I
find
there
was
an
element
of
value
to
the
appellant
in
taking
the
trip
to
Athens
with
some
free
time
on
his
hands
and
all
expenses
paid.
The
value
received,
however,
was
only
nominal,
say
10%
of
the
amount
added
by
the
Minister
to
his
reported
income
and,
in
my
opinion,
the
appellant
should
not
be
obliged
to
pay
tax
on
more
than
10%
of
the
cost
of
the
trip
to
Greece
as
indicated
at
the
hearing.
I
allow
the
appeal
in
part
and
refer
the
assessment
back
to
the
Minister
for
reconsideration
and
reassessment
on
the
basis
that
the
appellant
did
in
fact
receive
something
of
value,
but
that
the
taxable
benefit
to
him
did
not
exceed
10%
of
$487.93.
Appeal
allowed
in
part.
Email this Content