Linden
J.A.:
While
Mr.
Griffin
has
made
some
cogent
arguments
about
the
inconsistencies
and
injustices
of
the
law
in
this
area,
we
are
of
the
view
that,
unless
and
until
Parliament
or
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
revises
the
law,
we
are
bound
to
decide
these
cases
in
accordance
with
the
principles
enunciated
by
this
Court
in
Phillips
[[1994]
1
C.T.C.
383
(Fed.
C.
A.)].
In
our
view,
the
taxpayer
in
this
case
is
“better
off’
because
his
“net
worth
has
been
increased”
by
the
payment
of
the
so-called
housing
allowance
of
$22,500.
He
has,
to
use
the
words
used
in
Hoefele
[(1994),
94
D.
T.C.
1878
(T.C.C.)]
been
“enriched”
not
“restored”.
Hence,
the
amount
is
taxable
under
Section
6(1
)(a).
In
the
light
of
this
conclusion,
there
is
no
need
to
deal
with
the
arguments
raised
under
sections
6(1
)(b)
and
6(3).
The
appeal
will
be
allowed,
the
judgment
of
the
Trial
Judge
will
be
reversed
and
the
reassessment
of
the
Minister
will
be
restored.
All
reasonable
and
proper
costs
will
be
to
the
respondent.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content