St-Onge
J.T.C.C.:
—
The
appeal
of
Suman
Dhondge
was
heard
on
the
25th
of
June
1996
in
the
City
of
Toronto,
Ontario,
and
the
issue
is
whether
the
Appellant
has
to
pay
income
taxes
on
employment
income
which
includes
a
benefit
for
housing,
board
and
lodging
in
the
amount
of
$3,753.00
in
her
1993
taxation
year.
In
rendering
its
decision
to
the
effect
that
the
employment
benefit
received
from
his
employer
is
taxable,
the
Minister
alleged
the
following:
5(a)
at
all
material
times,
the
Appellant
was
employed
as
a
live-in
nanny
by
the
Employer;
(b)
in
the
1993
taxation
year,
the
Employer
provided
the
Appellant
with
taxable
benefits
in
respect
of
housing,
board
and
lodging;
(c)
the
value
of
the
taxable
benefit
received
by
the
Appellant
in
the
1993
taxation
year
in
respect
of,
or
by
virtue
of
her
office
or
employment
with
the
Employer
was
$3,753.75;
(d)
the
Employer
issued
a
1993
T4
supplementary
in
the
name
of
the
Appellant
and
properly
included
in
total
gross
employment
income:
the
payment
for
the
services
the
Appellant
provided
and
the
value
of
benefits
in
respect
of
housing,
board
and
lodging
received
or
enjoyed
by
the
Appellant
in
the
year;
(e)
the
Employer
did
not
withhold
from
the
Appellant’s
pay
Canada
Pension
Plan
contributions,
Unemployment
Insurance
premiums
or
income
tax
amounts
higher
than
the
amounts
indicated
on
the
T4
supplementary.
8.
He
submits
that
in
the
1993
taxation
year
the
Appellant,
in
her
capacity
as
employee,
received
gross
income
in
the
amount
of
$12,2349.52
from
her
Employer
in
respect
of
the
services
provided
by
her
and
the
value
of
housing,
board
and
lodging,
and
that
such
amount
was
properly
included
in
computing
her
income
in
the
year
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
subsection
5(1)
and
paragraph
6(1
)(a)
of
the
Act.
At
hearing
the
evidence,
the
Appellant
admits
all
of
subparagraph
5,
except
the
word
“properly”
of
5(d).
Heard
as
a
witness,
she
explained
with
the
help
of
an
interpreter
that
she
did
work
10
months
for
her
first
employer
at
a
salary
of
$700.00
a
month
in
her
1993
taxation
year
and
that
her
first
employer,
who
did
prepare
her
income
tax
return,
was
to
pay
the
taxes.
She
did
also
work
two
months
for
a
second
employer
and
did
not
have
to
pay
anything
for
the
value
of
board
and
lodging.
It
is
obvious
from
the
evidence
adduced
that
the
Appellant
did
receive
the
value
of
board
and
lodging
from
her
two
employers
in
the
1993
taxation
year
and
the
amount
established
by
the
Respondent
is
not
exaggerated.
Section
61(a)
of
The
Income
Tax
Act
reads
as
follows:
Value
of
benefits.
—
the
value
of
board,
lodging
and
other
benefits
of
any
kind
whatever
received
or
enjoyed
by
him
in
the
year
in
respect
of,
in
the
course
of,
or
by
virtue
of
an
office
or
employment,
except
any
benefit
(i)
derived
from
his
employer’s
contributions
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
relation
to
the
use
of
an
automobile,
except
to
the
extent
that
it
related
to
the
operation
of
the
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)(1)
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
by
reason
of
subsection
(11).
This
section
is
an
integral
part
of
my
judgment.
There
is
no
evidence
to
show
that
the
Appellant
falls
under
the
exception
of
the
said
section.
The
Appellant
who
had
the
onus
to
show
that
the
amount
established
by
the
Respondent
in
respect
of
housing,
board
and
lodging
was
not
properly
included
in
her
total
gross
employment
income
failed
to
do
so.
There
is
no
doubt
that
she
did
receive
the
value
of
housing,
board
and
lodging
from
two
employers
and
whatever
was
said
by
her
first
employer,
she
is
the
one
who
must
pay
tax
for
the
benefit
she
did
receive
from
her
employers.
Consequently,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content