Beaubier
T
.C
J
.:
These
matters
were
heard
jointly
on
common
evidence
at
Vancouver,
British
Columbia
on
November
8,
1996
pursuant
to
the
Informal
Procedure.
John
Jelles
was
the
only
witness.
The
Appellants
are
husband
and
wife.
The
Appellants
were
reassessed
for
their
1993
and
1994
taxation
years.
They
each
reported
receiving
$1,500
per
year
as
the
“value”
of
housing
benefits
received
from
their
employer.
The
Minister
of
National
Revenue
reassessed
them
and
increased
each
housing
benefit
by
$1,848.30
per
year.
They
appealed.
Paragraph
3
of
the
Reply
to
Mr.
Jelles’
Notice
of
Appeal
reads:
3.
In
so
reassessing
the
Appellant,
the
Minister
made
the
following
assumptions
of
fact:
(a)
at
all
material
times,
the
Appellant
and
his
spouse
were
employed
as
a
resident
caretakers
with
Goodwood
Property
Investments
Ltd.;
(b)
at
all
material
times,
the
Appellant
and
his
spouse
were
responsible
for
the
caretaking
of
Riverside
Mews;
(c)
Goodwood
Property
Investments
Ltd.
provided
one
suite
in
Riverside
Mews
to
the
Appellant
and
his
spouse
for
use
as
their
residence;
(d)
by
a
contract
dated
October
13,
1992,
the
remuneration
to
the
Appellant
and
his
spouse
included
the
sum
of
$250.00
per
month
as
the
taxable
benefit
portion
of
the
suite
provided
to
them;
(e)
during
the
1993
and
1994
taxation
years,
the
fair
market
value
for
the
use
of
the
suite
was
not
less
than
$965.00
per
month;
(f)
the
Appellant
and
his
spouse
used
14.67%
of
their
suite
as
office
and
storage
space;
(g)
the
additional
housing
benefit
to
the
Appellant
for
the
1993
and
1994
taxation
year
is
calculated
as
follows:
Assumptions
(a)
to
(f)
inclusive
are
true.
However,
at
all
times,
the
Appellants
owned
a
home
which
they
resided
in
on
weekends
and
statutory
holidays.
Pursuant
to
the
contract
of
employment,
they
were
required
to
be
on
call
24
hours
per
day
and
to
stay
in
the
suite
as
part
of
their
caretaking
duties
at
Riverside
Mews.
As
Mr.
Jelles
stated,
they
did
not
have
“quiet
enjoyment”
of
the
suite
during
the
five
days
per
week
that
they
were
required
to
stay
in
it.
|
1993
|
1994
|
Fair
Market
Value
of
Rent
|
$1,580.00
|
$1,580.00
|
-$965.00/month
x
12
months
|
|
Less:
|
|
Work
space
in
home
-
rent
|
(1,698.84)
|
1,698.84
|
-costs
|
(
184.56)
(
184.56)
|
amount
paid
for
suite
|
(3,000.00)
|
(3,000.00)
|
Total
Benefit
|
$6,696.60
|
$6,696.60
|
1/2
share
|
3,348.30
|
3,348.30
|
Less:
Benefit
reported
|
(1,500.00)
|
(1,500.00)
|
Additional
Taxable
Benefit
|
$1,848.30
|
$1,848.30
|
The
question
is:
what
is
the
value
of
the
Appellants’
lodging
received
from
their
employer
to
render
them
taxable
pursuant
to
paragraph
6(1)(a)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act?
At
all
times
the
Appellants
owned
their
own
home
within
easy
commuting
distance
of
their
place
of
work.
For
five
days
each
week
their
employer
required
them
to
live
in
the
suite,
do
their
caretaking
duties
and
to
be
on
call
24
hours
per
day
in
the
suite.
The
rest
of
the
time
they
went
home.
As
Mr.
Jelles
said,
they
stayed
in
the
suite
pursuant
to
their
contract
of
employment
and
had
no
quiet
enjoyment.
It
is
clear
to
the
Court
that
they
stayed
in
the
suite
for
the
benefit
of
their
employer
and
not
for
their
own
benefit.
The
suite
was
not
a
benefit
to
them.
Their
presence
in
it
was
a
part
of
their
duties
of
employment.
The
appeal
is
allowed.
This
matter
is
referred
to
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
for
reconsideration
and
reassessment
accordingly.
The
Appellants
had
to
travel
into
Vancouver
to
conduct
their
appeals.
They
are
each
awarded
$75.00
for
their
out-of-pocket
expenses
as
their
costs
in
these
proceedings.
Appeal
allowed.