Stauffer v. The Queen, docket 2002-211-IT-I (Informal Procedure)

Date: 20020917

Docket: 2002-211-IT-I

BETWEEN:

MELVIN STAUFFER,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent,

2002-210(IT)I

AND BETWEEN:

THOMAS STEELE,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent,

2002-212(IT)I

AND BETWEEN:

GRAHAM SCOLES,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent,

2002-213(IT)I

AND BETWEEN:

RAYMOND STEPHANSON,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent,

2002-214(IT)I

AND BETWEEN:

DONALD HAMILTON,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

Reasons for Judgment

Beaubier, J.T.C.C.

[1]            These appeals pursuant to the Informal Procedure were heard jointly on common evidence at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan on August 29, 2002. The Appellants called Michael Ash, Fiona Popoff, William Dean and Brian Waldbauer, all of whom are employees of the Government of Canada at premises on the campus of the University of Saskatchewan ("U of S") and who park their personal vehicles there on employer supplied parking lots. The Appellants also called Robert Ferguson, Director of Security Service for the U of S who has been Recording Secretary of its Parking Committee at all material times. The Appellant, Donald Hamilton, Professor and Department Head - Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, a former member of the Parking Committee and a member of the University of Saskatchewan Faculty Association who participated in negotiating their first Collective Agreement in 1978-79, testified on behalf of all of the Appellants.

[2]            Paragraphs 9 to 15 inclusive of the Reply to Mr. Hamilton's Notice of Appeal read:

9.              By letter to the Appellant dated November 2, 2001, the Minister stated, inter alia:

(a)            that the general position of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (the "Agency") is that employer-provided parking constitutes a taxable benefit to the employee under paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Act;

(b)            that the amount of the benefit is based on the fair market value of the parking space minus any payment the employee makes to use the space;

(c)            that, in a settlement between the Employer and the Agency, the value of the Appellant's parking space was determined to be $259.92 per year;

(d)            that the Appellant paid the Employer $85.92 for the use of the parking space; and

(e)            that the difference of $174.00 is, therefore, a taxable benefit.

10.            The Minister confirmed the reassessment stated in paragraph 7 above by Notification of Confirmation dated November 5, 2001.

11.            In so reassessing the Appellant, the Minister made the following assumptions of fact:

(a)            the facts admitted and stated above, some of which are repeated here for ease of reference;

(b)            by virtue of his employment with the Employer, the Appellant was provided with a parking space;

(c)            as a condition of his employment with the Employer, the Appellant was not ordinarily required to use his automobile on a regular basis to perform his duties of office or employment;

(d)            the Employer charged the Appellant and the Appellant paid to the Employer rent for the use of the parking space in the amount of $7.16 per month for a total of $85.92 for the 1999 taxation year;

(e)            the fair market value of the parking space provided to the Appellant by the Employer was not less than $21.66 per month or $259.92 for the 1999 taxation year;

(f)             the cost to the Employer of providing the parking space to the Appellant was not less than $21.52 per month or $258.24 for the 1999 taxation year;

(g)            the value of the parking provided by the Employer to the Appellant, less the amount the Appellant paid to the Employer for the use of the parking space, was a benefit received or enjoyed by the Appellant, in respect of, in the course of, or by virtue of the Appellant's office or employment with the Employer;

(h)            the value of the benefit in respect of parking received by the Appellant for the 1999 taxation year was not less that $174.00;

(i)             the Employer included the value of the benefit for parking in the amount of $174.00 as a taxable benefit in determining the amount of the employment income it paid to the Appellant for the 1999 taxation year;

(j)             in addition to the parking that the Employer provided to its employees, including the Appellant, the Employer also provided parking to the public;

(k)            parking rates that the Employer charged the public to park at its parking facilities were at fair market value;

(l)             the parking rates that the Employer charged the public were higher than the parking rate it charged to the Appellant; and

(m)           the total of the value of the parking benefit included into the Appellant's income in the amount of $174.00, plus the amount paid by the Appellant to the Employer for the use of the parking space of $85.92, amounting to $259.92, was less than or comparable to parking rates charged by other businesses and organizations near the parking facility of the Employer in which the Appellant was provided with parking.

B.             ISSUE TO BE DECIDED

12.            The issue to be decided is whether the Appellant was properly assessed a taxable benefit in the amount of $174.00 for the 1999 taxation year in respect of parking provided by the Employer.

C.             STATUTORY PROVISIONS, GROUNDS RELIED ON AND RELIEF SOUGHT

13.            He relies on, inter alia, sections 3, 5 and 248, subsection 6(7) and paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Act as amended for the 1999 taxation year.

14.            He submits that a benefit was conferred on the Appellant in the 1999 taxation year within the meaning of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Act as a result of a parking space provided to the Appellant by his Employer.

15.            He further submits that the Appellant was properly assessed a taxable benefit in the amount of $174.00 for the 1999 taxation year in respect of parking provided by the Employer in accordance with sections 3 and 5 and paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Act.

[3]            Assumptions 11 (a) to (d) inclusive, (i), (j) and (l) were not refuted. According to the Respondent's Appraiser's testimony, assumption (k) is wrong. Assumptions 11(e) to (h) inclusive and (m) are in dispute.

[4]            The parties filed a Partial Agreed Statement of Facts which reads as follows:

PARTIAL AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

The parties to the within action agree, through their respective counsel, to the following facts:

1.              The University of Saskatchewan is a post-secondary institution established as an autonomous corporation pursuant to The University of Saskatchewan Act, 1995, S.S. 1997, c.T-22.2.

2.              The University campus is located in Saskatoon and is bounded by College Drive on the south side, the South Saskatchewan River on the west side, Preston Avenue to the east and Innovations Place to the north. The University campus approximately 10-12 blocks east of Saskatoon's downtown business district on the opposite side of the South Saskatchewan River. The campus is accessible from Preston Avenue and College Drive via several entrances. The entrance roadways connect to Campus Drive, which forms a ring around the central portion of the campus.

3.              In 1999, there were approximately 2,500 full-time faculty and staff members and approximately 15,000 regular session undergraduate and graduate students and 4,000 part-time graduate and undergraduate students on the main campus at the University.

4.              At all relevant times, the University owned approximately 11 surface parking lots on campus, which were available for rent exclusively by faculty and staff members. The lots are designated by letters of the alphabet and some of the lots are in split locations or adjacent to each other. In total, there are 15 faculty and staff lot sites designated by the following letters: A, AB, AD, AE, C, F, G, H, HA, K, L, O, R, T and V. Except for lots T and AB, all of the parking lots are located within the boundaries of the campus set out above. A map attached hereto as Document 1 depicts the location of the main parking lots on campus.

5.              The 15 faculty and staff lot sites range in size from 4 - 891 stalls with a total of approximately 2,395 stalls available to faculty and staff. The faculty and staff lots are primarily gravelled and have lighting and almost all of the stalls are electrified.

6.              In 1999, the Appellants paid an annual rental fee of $86 per year for an electrified stall. The annual fee consisted of $56.80 for the stall and $29.20 for electricity.

7.              There are 4 primary student lots identified as lots E, P, Y and Z. In 1999, there were approximately 1,600 student stalls available on campus (excluding McEown Park). All of the student lots are lighted and gravelled. During the 1998-1999 University calendar year, only Lot P was electrified. Lot Y was electrified prior the 1999-2000 University calendar year. Since 1997, student parking stalls have been sold on the U-Star system based on a first-come first-served basis. Sales are conducted in March and September each year, with 75% of the capacity being sold in March to allow existing students first opportunity to acquire parking permits. During 1999, student stalls in electrified lots were sold for $63.28 for the 8 month University regular session, comprised of $34.08 for the stall rental (or 60% of the annual fee charged to faculty and staff members for stall rental for a 12 month period) and $29.20 for electricity. Student stalls in non-electrified lots were sold for $34.08 for the 8 month regular session.

8.              There is also an electrified parking lot located 6 blocks south of campus at the University Highrise apartment complex, McEown Park, known as Lot U. Stalls in this lot are sold on a first-come, first-serve basis and are available to residents of McEown Park, as well as other students and faculty and staff.

9.              Parking stalls are offered for rent to faculty and staff on an annual basis for an annual fee. Any member of the faculty and staff may apply for a parking permit. Faculty and staff members are assigned parking based on years of service at the University. If a member of the faculty and staff has sufficient years of service at the University to qualify for parking, an assignment is made by the University firstly to a specified lot and then to a specified stall within the lot based on seniority. The permits are issued for a one-year period with subsequent annual renewals. Faculty and staff members who do not qualify for parking due to insufficient years of service are entitled to place their name on a waiting list for parking. In addition, faculty and staff members who qualify for parking are permitted to place their name on a waiting list for a preferred parking lot.

10.            During the 1998-1999 University calendar year there was a total of 2,390 parking stalls assigned to faculty and staff. In addition there were 473 faculty and staff members on the waiting list for a parking stall and 930 who had stalls but were on a waiting list to be relocated to a preferred lot.

11.            Faculty and staff members who do not have a parking permit either because they elect not to apply for a permit or they are on a waiting list do not receive additional compensation from the University.

12.            The faculty and staff members who are issued parking permits have exclusive use of their designated parking stall during the year from Monday through Friday, from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. At all other times, faculty and staff members do not have an exclusive right to their designated stalls. After 6:00 p.m. and on weekends, a faculty and staff permit turns into random or scramble parking and can be used in any staff lot on campus. Similarly, students holding student parking permits are entitled to park in any student lot after 6:00 p.m. Night permits are also sold by the University which gives the permit holder the right to park in any staff or student lot after 6:00 p.m. Individuals holding parking permits from McEown Park may use their parking permits after 6:00 p.m. to park in any student or staff lot on campus.

13.            During the summer months, students must obtain summer parking permits to park in student lots E, P and Y. Parking in student lot Z is free during the summer months.

14.            Throughout the 1999 taxation year, each of the Appellants was employed by the University as a full-time faculty member in the following positions and worked on campus at the following locations:

Appellant	Position	Location
Thomas Steele	Professor of Physics	Physics Building
Melvyn Stauffer	Professor of Geology	Geology Building
Graham Scoles	Associate Dean (Research)- College of Agriculture Department Head - Plant Sciences	Agriculture Building
Raymond Stephanson	Professor of English	Arts Tower
Donald Hamilton	Department Head - Veterinary & Biomedical Sciences	Veterinary Medicine Building

15.            During the 1999 taxation year, each of the Appellants rented a specific parking stall from the University in the specific lot set out below and paid to the University an annual parking fee for its use in the amount of $85.92.

Appellant	Lot
Thomas Steele	Lot V
Melvyn Stauffer	Lot G
Graham Scoles	Lot V
Raymond Stephanson	Lot G
Donald Hamilton	Lot HA

16.            At all material times, the Appellants were members of a bargaining unit represented by the University of Saskatchewan Faculty Association (the "Association") and were subject to a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Association and the University.

17.            The parking stalls were rented by the University to each of the Appellants pursuant to section 26 of the 1995-1998 Collective Agreement. In addition, parking on the premises of the University was regulated by the existing regulations on Traffic and Parking contained in the "University of Saskatchewan Traffic Regulations, Revised March, 1984", and, in particular, section 14 "Terms and Conditions for Use of Parking Lots, Revised February, 1983".

18.            Section 26 of the Collective Agreement provides, inter alia, as follows:

26.1          The Employer agrees to provide parking facilities on campus to be assigned in accordance with the priorities provided for in the Traffic Regulations (article 26.2).

26.2          Existing regulations on Traffic and Parking are contained in the document "University of Saskatchewan Traffic Regulations, Revised March, 1984" and including section 14 "Terms and Conditions for Use of Parking Lots, Revised February, 1983". These regulations shall remain in effect insofar as they are consistent with article 26.1 and provided that amendments are made in accordance with article 26.4.

The Employer shall be responsible for the enforcement of these regulations.

26.3          The Committee on Traffic and Parking shall be established. Membership of the Committee shall consist of two representatives of the Employer and two representatives of the Association, and may include two representatives of C.U.P.E., local 1975, two representatives of the Administrative and Supervisory Personnel Association, two representatives of C.U.P.E., local 3287, and two representatives of the University of Saskatchewan Students' Union. The Committee shall elect its own chair.

26.4          The Committee on Traffic and Parking shall meet as necessary to consider matters affecting traffic and parking and shall:

...

(f)             refer any major amendments of the Parking Regulations affecting faculty such as changes in the system of allocating parking stalls and the availability of reserved parking stalls, to the Board and the Association for bilateral negotiation at the Joint Committee for the management of the agreement. All monies collected by the University for faculty, staff and student parking will be used to pay the legitimate expenses attributable to such parking facilities. The parking fee schedule will be set in such a manner that the revenues and expenditures over any three-year period will provide a break-even position for the fund. The University will prepare an annual statement of Revenues and Expenditures pertaining to the provision of faculty, staff and student parking and present such a statement to the Committee on Traffic and Parking. Any change in the parking fee schedule requires the approval of a majority of the Committee on Traffic and Parking. [Emphasis Added]

19.            In the T4 slip issued by the University to each of the Appellants for the 1999 taxation year, the University included, as a taxable benefit, the sum of $ 174.00 for parking.

20.            The amount of the taxable benefit included in each of the Appellant's T4 slip was based on a settlement agreement reached between the University and Canada Customs and Revenue Agency ("CCRA") dated December 21, 1999, pursuant to which it was agreed between those parties, but not the Appellants, than an employee benefit for parking would be reflected by the University in issuing T4 slips for the 1999 calendar year based on an average monthly parking rate of $21.66 ($259.92 per year) for electrified stalls, less the actual amount paid by the employees to the University.

21.            In filing their 1999 income tax returns, the Appellants excluded from their income the amount of the taxable employee benefit for parking included in the T4 slips issued by the University.

22.            CCRA issued a Notice of Reassessment to each of the Appellants for the 1999 taxation year to include as a taxable benefit the sum of $174.00 in respect of parking.

23.            The Appellants filed a Notice of Objection to the Notice of Reassessment in a timely manner.

24.            The Minister confirmed the Reassessments of the Appellants by Notices of Confirmation dated November 5, 2001.

25.            The Appellants filed Notices of Appeal with the Tax Court of Canada in a timely manner.

[5]            Paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act") for the year 1999 reads:

6. (1)        There shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year as income from an office or employment such of the following amounts as are applicable:

(a)            the value of board, lodging and other benefits of any kind whatever received or enjoyed by the taxpayer in the year in respect of, in the course of, or by virtue of an office or employment, except any benefit

(i)             derived from the contributions of the taxpayer's employer to or under a registered pension plan, group sickness or accident insurance plan, private health services plan, supplementary unemployment benefit plan, deferred profit sharing plan or group term life insurance policy,

(ii)            under a retirement compensation arrangement, an employee benefit plan or an employee trust,

(iii)           that was a benefit in respect of the use of an automobile,

(iv)           derived from counselling services in respect of

(A)           the mental or physical health of the taxpayer or an individual related to the taxpayer, other than a benefit attributable to an outlay or expense to which paragraph 18(1)(l) applies, or

(B)            the re-employment or retirement of the taxpayer, or

(v)            under a salary deferral arrangement, except to the extent that the benefit is included under this paragraph because of subsection (11);

[6]            Ed Klymchuk was the only witness called by the Respondent. He was qualified as an expert witness for the purpose of estimating the market rent of the subject parking stalls as of "June 1, 1999". His estimate was $40.00 per stall per month plus G.S.T. To arrive at this, Mr. Klymchuk surveyed downtown Saskatoon parking lots and rates at its core and perimeter and the parking rates

charged by Innovation Place and Royal University Hospital on the U of S premises and by Sheptycky Institute located across College Drive from the U of S premises. His discussion of these last three reads as follows on page 12 of his report:

Innovation Place, operated by the Saskatchewan Opportunities Corporation (SCCO) which is a up scale business complex located immediately to the north boundary of the University of Saskatchewan has approximately 1,500 stalls paved with lighting and offers the parking stalls at $30.00 per month plus GST on a random basis of $ 60.00 per month plus GST reserved to employees of companies leasing space from them (note: rates changed July, 2002 to $ 37.45 random and $74.90 reserved GST included). Unlike the open market rental rates provided by Imperial Parking, Innovation Place has an interest in the larger feature of leasing the office space and attracting tenants. It is understood they have one of the highest, if not the highest prices for lease space in the City of Saskatoon.

Sheptycky Institute located at 1236 College Drive has a rate of $31.25 for parking which is reserved, paved and electrified.

Royal University Hospital charges $32.10 as of the effective date and as of the date of the appraisal July 2002 the rate is $35.00 including GST. The make up of the service provided is paved parking, reserved, surface or parkcade.

Range of the three is $30.00 -- $32.10 or an average of $31.12 per month.

Comparing the two, the public parking is $50.00 for the basic parking while private parking is $31.12 for paved with electricity or parkade. It is obvious the Royal University Hospital had parkade parking which is under valued according to market conditions. Removing the hospital, the average remains almost the same at $30.63 per month. The subject by comparison would land in both public and private as far as quality of site the difference being private charges $30.63 while public is $50.00 per month. When comparing the paved to gravel surface there does not appear to be a measurable difference in rental obtained while with electrified sites there appears to be a measurable difference.

[7]            The U of S premises are located adjacent to the east side of the South Saskatchewan River and across the river from the north end of Saskatoon's downtown perimeter. In summary the premises are north of College Drive, west of Preston Avenue and south of Innovation Place. East of the premises there lies a very wide border (of a few hundred meters) of agricultural land operated by the U of S. South of the premises across College Drive there is a border of several street blocks of residential streets on which non-residential parking is severely restricted. As a result, from a competitive or a comparable basis, the Court finds that the parking available in or near downtown Saskatoon is not an appropriate comparable. That parking consists of an open highly competitive commercial market. That is not the case on the University premises.

[8]            The University premises and Innovation Place have a number of parking lots with specified customers. These are already described, but in summary they also include:

1.         Innovation Place

2.         Royal University Hospital

3.         Sheptycky Institute

4.         U of S student parking which it rented in 1999 for $63.28 per stall on electrified, gravelled, lighted lots for 8 months, including the winter months. (Partial Agreed Statement of Facts, paragraph 7).

5.         Federal Government employee and visitor parking lots for which the employees either were not charged or in Mr. Ash's case paid $20.00 per year, based on an earlier estimate of electrical charges for the stall's plug-in.

[9]            The Innovation Place, Royal University Hospital and Sheptycky Institute lots were all paved, lighted and electrified with stall plug-ins. All of the Appellants about whom testimony was given parked on unpaved, lighted lots which are electrified with stall plug-ins.

[10]          Messrs Ferguson and Hamilton testified that the parking rate charges to the Appellants are made on a cost basis over a three year moving average. Detailed evidence was led respecting this, and the Court is satisfied that their testimony is true and correct. Donald Hamilton testified that at the end of the 1990's it was calculated by the Parking Committee that paving the parking lots would double or triple the costs to be charged to the Appellants. That testimony is also accepted as true.

[11]          The Court notes that, in respect to the comparables described in paragraph [8]:

1. The renters are large corporate entities and appear to have a virtual monopoly on parking stalls on the U of S premises.

2. Hourly parking aside, except for the student and Innovation Place customers, the customers appear, like the Appellants, to be represented by union bargainers who represent all of the customers of the renters. Moreover, given the market for customers, these union bargainers represent almost the only customers for parking given the large number of stalls for rent.

3. The student rented stalls are rented by the U of S to them on a non-profit basis, just as is done for the Appellants.

4. The Innovation Place stalls, which are paved, are admitted by Mr. Klymchuk to be rented by a high priced landlord.

5. Robert Ferguson testified that the charges in metered parking (at a charge of $1.00 and later $1.25 per hour) average $2.25 per stay. The metered parking rates are designed to cause a high turnover and therefore they are not applicable for comparison purposes.

[12]          In the Court's view the comparables in this case are based upon parking rates negotiated by large, almost monopolistic renters such as the U of S and the Government of Canada on one side, and large union-like bargainers for customers on the other side. In addition, an obvious important factor is the fact that the parking lots used by the Appellants appear to be gravel and not paved. Particularly at wet times in the year, this is a severe impairment on the quality of the lots and stalls.

[13]          A separate, but important aspect is the evidence that the U of S attempts to charge for most of its services such as books, cafeteria meals, residences, and veterinary pharmaceuticals on a non-profit basis, but at cost. Similarly, lighted, electrified, unpaved, student parking in 1999 was charged at $63.28 by the U of S for the 8 month regular session - which includes all of the months in which plug-ins would be used so as to incur expense to the U of S. That was rented at cost.

[14]          It is also noted that paragraph 11 of the Partial Agreed Statement of Facts reads:

Faculty and staff members who do not have a parking permit either because they elect not to apply for a permit or they are on a waiting list do not receive additional compensation from the University.

[15]          In summary, in 1999, for gravelled parking:

1. The Appellants paid $86.00 per year, the U of S's cost, for 12 months parking (Partial Agreed Statement of Facts, paragraph 6)

2. The Federal Government employees paid $20.00 per year, maximum.

3. The students paid $63.28 for 8 months of the year including the winter months, when plug-ins are normally used.

[16]          In 1999, at best, on the U of S premises, gravelled parking (which on the evidence the Court finds to be in a completely different category than paved parking) was rented at cost. That is what the Appellant's paid. Their fellow employees who did not rent parking did not receive any additional compensation.

[17]          Moreover, on the evidence, the Court finds that for the gravelled parking stalls on the U of S premises, the cost determined by the Parking Committee pursuant to the Collective Agreement is the fair market value of those stalls. That is so for the following reasons:

1.             The U of S premises monthly or long term parking stall market is a restricted market with large renters and large (union and faculty association) customers. These are arm's length negotiators of roughly equal strength.

2.              The other University employees who do not park do not receive extra compensation in lieu of parking.

3.              The U of S has a cost policy for its extra curricular services which is being carried out in this instance.

4.              It is worth noting that, in business, one cannot always sell goods or services at a profit. Some things are not worth a price that will produce a profit. On the evidence in this case, gravelled parking stalls which have electrical plugs-ins cannot be leased at a profit on the U of S premises.

[18]          In Detchon v. R., [1996] 1 C.T.C. 2475, a General Procedure case, Rip, J. decided that valuing a benefit assessed against teachers at Bishop's College School at cost was a correct approach. This Court agrees with Judge Rip's decision and adopts his reasoning for the purposes of this judgment. On the evidence, the Court finds that, for gravelled parking stalls on the U of S premises, the cost determined by the Parking Committee pursuant to the Collective Agreement is the value of that space within the meaning of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Act.

[19]          The evidence that the Appellants paid the cost of their parking in 1999 is accepted. For these reasons, the Court finds that they did not receive a benefit from their employer in 1999.

[20]          The Appeals are allowed. The Appeals were proceeded with under the Informal Procedure. However the Appellants quite properly retained legal counsel for the purposes of the Appeals and considerable Court time was saved by the Partial Agreed Statement of Facts. For these reasons, each Appellant is awarded a full set of costs under the Informal Procedure Tariff, including the costs of the hearing which required a full day.

Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 17th day of September, 2002.

"D. W. Beaubier"

J.T.C.C.COURT FILE NO.:                                   2002-211(IT)I, 2002-210(IT)I

                                                                                                2002-212(IT)I, 2002-213(IT)I and

                                                                                                2002-214(IT)I

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                               Melvin Stauffer v. The Queen

                                                                                                Thomas Steele v. The Queen

                                                                                                Graham Scoles v. The Queen

                                                                                                Raymond Stephanson v. The Queen

                                                                                                Donald Hamilton v. The Queen

PLACE OF HEARING:                                         Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

DATE OF HEARING:                                           August 29, 2002

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:      The Honourable Judge D. W. Beaubier

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                       September 17, 2002

APPEARANCES:

Counsel for the Appellant: Douglas C. Hodson

                                                                                Kurt Wintermute

Counsel for the Respondent:              Angela Evans

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For the Appellant:                                                

Name:                                Douglas C. Hodson

Firm:                  MacPherson Leslie & Tyerman

For the Respondent:                             Morris Rosenberg

                                                                                Deputy Attorney General of Canada

                                                                                                Ottawa, Canada

2002-211(IT)I

BETWEEN:

MELVIN STAUFFER,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of

Thomas Steele (2002-210(IT)I), Graham Scoles (2002-212(IT)I),

Raymond Stephanson (2002-213(IT)I) and Donald Hamilton (2002-214(IT)I)

on August 29, 2002 at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

by the Honourable Judge D. W. Beaubier

Appearances

Counsel for the Appellant:                  Douglas C. Hodson

                                                                                                Kurt Wintermute

Counsel for the Respondent:                              Angela Evans

JUDGMENT

                The appeal from the reassessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 1999 taxation year is allowed, and the matter is referred to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.

                Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 17th day of September, 2002.

"D. W. Beaubier"

J.T.C.C.

2002-210(IT)I

BETWEEN:

THOMAS STEELE,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of

Melvin Stauffer (2002-211(IT)I), Graham Scoles (2002-212(IT)I),

Raymond Stephanson (2002-213(IT)I) and Donald Hamilton (2002-214(IT)I)

on August 29, 2002 at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

by the Honourable Judge D. W. Beaubier

Appearances

Counsel for the Appellant:                  Douglas C. Hodson

                                                                                                Kurt Wintermute

Counsel for the Respondent:                              Angela Evans

JUDGMENT

                The appeal from the reassessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 1999 taxation year is allowed, and the matter is referred to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.

                Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 17th day of September, 2002.

"D. W. Beaubier"

J.T.C.C.

2002-212(IT)I

BETWEEN:

GRAHAM SCOLES,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of

Thomas Steele (2002-210(IT)I), Melvin Stauffer (2002-211(IT)I),

Raymond Stephanson (2002-213(IT)I) and Donald Hamilton (2002-214(IT)I)

on August 29, 2002 at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

by the Honourable Judge D. W. Beaubier

Appearances

Counsel for the Appellant:                  Douglas C. Hodson

                                                                                                Kurt Wintermute

Counsel for the Respondent:                              Angela Evans

JUDGMENT

                The appeal from the reassessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 1999 taxation year is allowed, and the matter is referred to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.

                Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 17th day of September, 2002.

"D. W. Beaubier"

J.T.C.C.

2002-213(IT)I

BETWEEN:

RAYMOND STEPHANSON,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of

Thomas Steele (2002-210(IT)I), Graham Scoles (2002-212(IT)I),

Melvin Stauffer (2002-211(IT)I) and Donald Hamilton (2002-214(IT)I)

on August 29, 2002 at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

by the Honourable Judge D. W. Beaubier

Appearances

Counsel for the Appellant:                  Douglas C. Hodson

                                                                                                Kurt Wintermute

Counsel for the Respondent:                              Angela Evans

JUDGMENT

                The appeal from the reassessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 1999 taxation year is allowed, and the matter is referred to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.

                Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 17th day of September, 2002.

"D. W. Beaubier"

J.T.C.C.

2002-214(IT)I

BETWEEN:

DONALD HAMILTON,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of

Thomas Steele (2002-210(IT)I), Graham Scoles (2002-212(IT)I),

Raymond Stephanson (2002-213(IT)I) and Melvin Stauffer (2002-211(IT)I)

on August 29, 2002 at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

by the Honourable Judge D. W. Beaubier

Appearances

Counsel for the Appellant:                  Douglas C. Hodson

                                                                                                Kurt Wintermute

Counsel for the Respondent:                              Angela Evans

JUDGMENT

                The appeal from the reassessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 1999 taxation year is allowed, and the matter is referred to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.

                Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 17th day of September, 2002.

"D. W. Beaubier"

J.T.C.C.