CAMERON,
J.:—This
is
an
appeal
from
a
decision
of
the
Income
Tax
Appeal
Board
dated
May
18,
1954,
whereby
the
appellant’s
appeal
from
an
assessment
for
the
taxation
year
1952
was
dismissed.
The
appellant
is
a
marine
engineer
and
in
1952
was
employed
as
such
on
the
8.S.
Princess
of
Nanaimo,
plying
between
Vancouver
and
Nanaimo
in
the
Province
of
British
Columbia,
making
six
single
trips
daily.
With
his
wife
and
family,
he
resided
at
Horseshoe
Bay.
His
wages
for
the
year
totalled
$3,977.32.
His
employer,
the
British
Columbia
Coast
Steamship
Service,
also
supplied
him
with
board
and
living
accommodation
on
the
vessel
free
of
charge.
Such
board
and
living
accommodation
was
valued
at
$228.00
and
there
is
no
dispute
as
to
the
accuracy
of
that
figure.
In
his
original
tax
return
the
appellant
included
as
part
of
his
income
the
said
sum
of
$228.00
as
11
value
of
free
board
and
living
accommodation’’.
In
an
amended
return
filed
by
him,
this
item
did
not
appear.
In
the
assessment
made
upon
him
and
dated
April
8,
1953,
the
item
of
$228.00
was
made
part
of
his
income
and
he
was
taxed
accordingly.
The
sole
question
for
determination
in
this
appeal
is
whether
that
sum
should
be
included
in
his
income
for
purposes
of
taxation.
The
assessment
in
respect
of
the
value
of
board
and
lodging
was
made
under
the
provisions
of
Section
5(a)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
Statutes
of
Canada,
1948,
as
amended,
and
it
is
upon
that
section
that
the
respondent
now
relies.
It
is
as
follows:
“5.
Income
for
a
taxation
year
from
an
office
or
employment
is
the
salary,
wages
and
other
remuneration,
including
gratuities,
received
by
the
taxpayer
in
the
year
plus
(a)
the
value
of
board,
lodging
and
other
benefits
(except
the
benefit
he
derives
from
his
employer’s
contributions
to
or
under
an
approved
superannuation
fund
or
plan,
group
insurance
plan
or
medical
services
plan)
received
or
enjoyed
by
him
in
the
year
in
respect
of,
in
the
course
of
or
by
virtue
of
the
office
or
the
employment”.
Prima
facte
at
least,
it
would
seem
that
the
value
of
the
board
and
lodging
received
by
the
appellant
falls
within
the
provisions
of
subsection
(a).
The
evidence
establishes
beyond
the
shadow
of
a
doubt
that
the
board
and
lodging
which
the
appellant
received
or
enjoyed
was
so
received
or
enjoyed
by
him
‘‘in
respect
of,
in
the
course
of
or
by
virtue
of’’
his
employment.
Had
he
not
been
employed
by
the
company,
he
would
not
have
been
entitled
to
and
would
not
have
received
or
enjoyed
the
benefits
of
the
board
and
lodging.
Moreover,
the
standard
printed
form
of
agreement
signed
by
all
members
of
the
crew,
including
the
appellant,
contained
the
following
provisions
:
(‘
.
.
in
consideration
of
which
services
to
be
duly
performed,
the
said
master
hereby
agrees
to
pay
to
the
said
crew
as
wages
the
sums
against
their
names
respectively
expressed,
and
to
supply
them
with
provisions
according
to
the
scale
herein.’’
Counsel
for
the
appellant
submits,
however,
that
as
the
appellant’s
employer
was
required
by
law
to
provide
board
and
lodging
the
appellant
had
no
option
in
the
matter
and
that,
therefore,
the
value
thereof
should
not
be
considered
as
part
of
his
income.
He
refers
to
Sections
165
and
228
of
the
Canada
Shipping
Act,
Statutes
of
Canada,
1934,
c.
44,
by
the
terms
of
which,
under
certain
circumstances,
masters
of
vessels
are
required
to
provide
lodging
for
members
of
the
crew
and
to
enter
into
a
written
agreement
such
as
was
here
signed
with
all
members
of
the
crew,
setting
out
the
terms
of
employment
and
the
scale
of
the
provisions
to
be
furnished
to
each
seaman
as
agreed
upon.
The
purpose
of
these
provisions
in
the
Canada
Shipping
Act
is
quite
obvious
and
need
not
here
be
discussed.
They
cannot,
however,
in
my
opinion,
affect
in
any
way
the
problem
now
before
me.
Section
5(a),
which
I
have
quoted
above,
makes
no
attempt
to
distinguish
between
the
value
of
board
and
lodging
which
is
received
or
enjoyed
by
an
employee—and
which
by
the
terms
of
a
statute
must
be
supplied
to
him
by
his
employer
or
be
set
forth
in
the
agreement—and
other
cases
where
there
is
no
such
statutory
requirement.
The
purpose
of
the
subsection
is
to
extend
the
meaning
of
‘‘income
from
an
office
or
employment”
beyond
the
normal
concept
of
‘‘salary,
wages
and
other
remuneration,
including
gratuities’’
by
including
in
that
term
the
value
of
board,
lodging
and
other
benefits
which
an
employee
may
receive
or
enjoy
in
the
course
of,
or
by
virtue
of,
his
office
or
employment.
The
provisions
of
the
subsection
are
fully
satisfied
if
the
board
and
lodging
are
received
or
enjoyed
by
him
in
respect
of,
in
the
course
of
or
by
virtue
of
the
office
or
employment.
To
exclude
from
its
ambit
the
value
of
board
and
lodging
—admittedly
received
or
enjoyed
and
proven
to
have
been
in
respect
of,
in
the
course
of
or
by
virtue
of
the
office
or
employment—merely
because
the
law
required
the
employer
to
provide
them,
would
be
to
read
into
the
subsection
an
exception
which
Parliament
has
not
seen
fit
to
provide
and
which
cannot
be
inferred
from
the
words
of
the
subsection
itself.
The
question
is
not
whether
the
employer
supplied
the
benefits
because
of
the
requirements
of
the
Canada
Shipping
Act
or
whether
it
did
so
by
voluntary
contract
or
otherwise—but
whether
the
appellant
did
receive
or
enjoy
them
in
1952
in
respect
of,
or
in
the
course
of,
or
by
virtue
of
his
employment,
and
my
finding
must
be
that
he
did.
Counsel
for
the
appellant
also
relied
on
Section
11(7)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
having
to
do
with
the
expenses
of
transport
employees.
It
relates
to
the
deduction
of
certain
amounts
disbursed
by
such
employees
for
board
and
lodging
under
certain
conditions.
Inasmuch
as
the
amounts
in
question
in
this
appeal
were
not
disbursed
by
the
appellant,
Section
11(7)
has
no
bearing
on
the
issue.
I
am
of
the
opinion
also
that
Section
5(b)
(i)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
is
of
no
assistance
to
the
appellant.
It
reads
as
follows:
“5.
Income
for
a
taxation
year
from
an
office
or
employment
is
the
salary,
wages
and
other
remuneration,
including
gratuities,
received
by
the
taxpayer
in
the
year
plus
(b)
all
amounts
received
by
him
in
the
year
as
an
allowance
for
personal
or
living
expenses
or
as
an
allowance
for
any
other
purpose
except
(i)
travelling
or
personal
or
living
expense
allowances
expressly
fixed
in
an
Act
of
the
Parliament
of
Canada’’.
Subsection
(b)
thereof
relates
to
amounts
received
by
a
taxpayer
as
an
allowance
for
personal
or
living
expenses
or
for
any
other
purpose.
The
word
‘‘amount’’
is
defined
in
the
Act
by
Section
127(1)
(a)
as
meaning
money,
rights,
or
things
expressed
in
terms
of
the
amount
of
money,
or
the
value
in
terms
of
money
of
the
right
or
thing.
Neither
the
living
accommodation
which
the
appellant
was
entitled
to
enjoy
by
reason
of
the
terms
of
the
Canada
Shipping
Act,
nor
the
board
or
provisions
which
he
received
by
reason
of
his
contract
with
his
employers,
was
money,
or
expressed
in
terms
of
the
amount
of
money
or
the
value
in
terms
of
money,
and
was
consequently
not
an
‘‘amount’’
within
the
meaning
of
subsection
(b).
The
statutory
provision
regarding
crew
accommodation
is
defined
in
terms
of
cubic
feet,
and
the
agreement
signed
by
the
appellant
provides
that
the
scale
of
provisions
shall
be
‘‘full
and
plenty’’.
It
becomes
unnecessary,
therefore,
to
consider
the
further
submission
that
the
appellant
falls
within
the
exception
provided
by
subsection
(i),
namely
“travelling
or
personal
or
living
expense
allowances
expressly
fixed
in
an
Act
of
the
Parliament
of
Canada”,
although
I
would
be
of
the
opinion
that
he
does
not.
For
the
reasons
which
I
have
stated,
the
appeal
will
be
dismissed
and
the
assessment
made
upon
the
appellant
will
be
affirmed,
with
costs
to
the
respondent.
Judgment
accordingly.
Email this Content