Watson D.J.T.C.:
1 This appeal was heard in Belleville, Ontario, on June 6, 1997 under the Informal Procedure.
2 In assessing the Appellant for the 1994 taxation year, the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) assessed the Appellant's income tax return as filed. Subsequently, the Appellant filed a Notice of Objection to the assessment with respect to an amount of $6,260 included in income for the personal use of his employer's automobile; a Notification of Confirmation of the assessment was issued by the Minister on April 24, 1996.
3 In so assessing and confirming the assessment, the Minister made the following assumptions of facts:
(a) the Appellant was employed by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto as the Director of Operations for the Toronto Department of Ambulance Services;
(b) the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (the “employer”) issued the Appellant a T4 slip for the 1994 taxation year which included an amount of $6,260.00 for the personal use of the employer's automobile;
(c) the Appellant took the vehicle home, used the vehicle on weekends, holidays and during his vacation;
(d) Appellant was in receipt of a benefit in the amount of $6,260.00;
(e) the employer's automobile was not an ambulance.
4 At the hearing, the Appellant admitted subparagraphs (a) and (b) and that he took the employer's vehicle home and used it on weekends and holidays; although the vehicle remained at home during his vacation, it was not used for personal transportation.
5 The issue in this appeal is whether the benefit in the amount of $6,260 was properly included in the Appellant's income for the 1994 taxation year.
6 The applicable law is found in paragraphs 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(e) and subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”).
7 The Appellant was the only witness at the hearing; he testified in an open and honest fashion and I have no hesitation whatsoever in accepting his evidence as credible. He raised some doubts as to whether the vehicle, a 4 X 4 Jeep Cherokee equipped with emergency lights, a siren, a radio and a full complement of equipment needed to render first aid at the scene of an accident, was an ambulance and therefore not subject to the wording of paragraph 6(1)(e) of the Act in the light of the definition of “automobile” contained in subsection 248(1). He contended that he was required to be on call at all times and, as Director of Operations for the Toronto Department of Ambulance Services, it was necessary for him to have an ambulance available to him at all times except when he was on vacation.
8 When giving due consideration to all of the circumstances, including the testimony of the Appellant, the admissions and documentary evidence, I am satisfied that he has not succeeded in establishing on a balance of probabilities that during the 1994 taxation year the vehicle provided to him by his employer was not a benefit “of any kind whatsoever received or enjoyed” pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Act, assuming that he is correct that the vehicle was not an “automobile”, but an “ambulance”. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Email this Content