Rowe
T.C.J.:
The
Appellant
appealed
with
respect
to
an
assessment
for
his
1994
taxation
year.
As
a
result
of
his
relocation
in
1994
from
Toronto
to
Windsor
he
received
from
the
employer
-
the
Bank
of
Nova
Scotia
—
a
transfer
allowance
amount
of
$8,375.50.
The
Minister
took
the
position
that
that
amount
received
by
the
Appellant
from
his
employer
was
properly
included
in
income
as
a
taxable
benefit.
The
Appellant’s
position
is
that
he
was
required
to
accept
that
transfer
and
that
he
had
recently
purchased
a
house
in
Oakville
and
had
undertaken
certain
capital
improvements
and
later
when
he
sold
the
house
he
incurred
a
loss
in
the
sum
of
$10,998.35.
His
position
is
that
the
payment
he
received
of
$8,375.50,
should
in
fact
not
be
taxable
because
in
his
particular
case
it
is
clear
that
he
sustained
the
loss.
The
Appellant
testified
that
the
payment
by
the
Bank
of
Nova
Scotia
is
made
on
a
blanket
basis
to
employees
who
are
required
to
move
and
is
based
on
a
formula
related
to
the
amount
of
salary
received
by
that
employee.
He
did
not
have
to
account
to
the
employer
for
the
payment
and
the
expenditure
of
that
amount
was
totally
and
completely
in
his
discretion.
Significantly,
the
bank
also
had
a
policy
whereby
the
actual
expenses
relating
to
the
moving
van,
temporary
accommodation,
mileage,
per
diem,
meal
allowance
and
so
on
were
reimbursed
or
paid
directly
by
the
bank
in
accordance
with
their
specific
policy.
Mr.
McIntosh
said
that
one
would
obtain
an
approval
prior
to
expending
funds
because
there
were
certain
limitations
in
relation
to
the
hotel
costs
and
food
allowances
that
had
to
match
bank
policy.
The
difficulty
here
as
I
indicated
in
the
course
of
my
dialogue
with
the
Appellant
is
that
this
was
not
in
fact
tied
to
any
specific
requirement
for
there
to
be
a
loss.
The
Federal
Court
of
Appeal
in
the
case
of
Phillips
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(1994),
94
D.T.C.
6177
(Fed.
C.A.),
was
a
case
in
which
the
judgment
was
written
for
the
Court
by
Mr.
Justice
Robertson,
and
in
dealing
with
Ransom
[Ransom
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(1967),
[1968]
1
Ex.
C.R.
293
(Can.
Ex.
Ct.)],
His
Lordship
said
at
page
6181:
The
rule
in
Ransom
is
straightforward.
Reimbursement
by
an
employer
for
the
loss
suffered
by
an
employee
in
selling
a
house
following
a
job
transfer
is
not
taxable
to
the
extent
that
the
payment
reflects
the
employee’s
actual
loss.
The
difficulty
in
this
particular
instance
is
that
the
structure
at
the
outset
was
not
designed
by
the
employer
for
that
particular
purpose.
The
general
rule
then
is
that
these
kinds
of
payments
are
going
to
be
taxable
unless
it
can
be
seen
that
they
are
to
be
in
the
specific
area
of
reimbursement,
especially
in
this
instance
where
the
employer
also
pays
the
actual
out-of-pocket
expenses
related
to
the
moving
van
and
certain
other
aspects
thereof.
This
has
been
a
difficult
area,
there
is
no
question
about
it
and
it
is
unfortunate
that
there
has
been
unevenness
in
the
assessment
and
reassessment
process.
However,
in
this
particular
instance
the
jurisprudence
is
such
that
the
facts
here
compel
me
to
hold
that
the
Minister’s
treatment
of
the
payment
was
in
fact
proper
and
that
it
was
properly
included
in
the
Appellant’s
income
as
a
taxable
benefit.
As
a
consequence
therefore
the
Appeal
is
hereby
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content