Bell
T.C.J.:
Issue:
The
issue
is
whether
the
Appellant
received
a
benefit
in
the
amount
of
$1,800
in
his
1993
taxation
year
under
paragraph
6(
1
)(«)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
(“Act”).
Facts:
The
Appellant
was
employed
as
Commissioner
of
Community
Services
for
the
Municipality
of
Metropolitan
Toronto.
In
1993,
his
employer
provided
him
with
a
reserved
parking
space
at
no
charge
to
him.
The
Appellant
testified
that
he
lived
very
close
to
Metro
Hall
and
that
he
only
used
his
car
when
it
was
necessary
to
attend
business
meetings
away
from
his
place
of
work.
He
said
that
he
lived
close
to
Metro
Hall
and
mostly
walked
to
work.
He
said
that
he
would
use
the
space
one
day
per
week
at
a
maximum.
He
had
use
of
the
parking
space,
with
card
accessibility,
24
hours
a
day,
seven
days
a
week.
The
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(“Minister”)
reassessed
the
Appellant
for
his
1993
taxation
year
adding
the
amount
of
$1,800
to
his
income
as
a
benefit
conferred
by
his
employer.
One
of
the
Minister’s
assumptions
upon
which
the
reassessment
was
said
to
be
made,
contained
in
the
Reply
to
the
Notice
of
Appeal,
was
that
the
fair
market
value
of
the
benefit
was
determined
based
on
the
value
of
an
equivalent
unreserved
parking
space
in
the
near
neighbourhood.
An
official
of
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
(“Department”)
stated
that
he
examined
a
number
of
parking
places
around
Metro
Hall.
One
was
at
Roy
Thompson
Hall,
the
cost
of
which
was
$195
per
month.
He
said
that
the
Toronto
Parking
Authority
in
the
neighbourhood
charged
$150
per
month.
He
further
said
that
an
outside
parking
stall
on
Wellington
Street,
cost
$160
per
month.
Such
official
further
testified
that
the
charge
at
the
Sky
Dome
was
$80
per
month
with
parking
restricted
to
8:00
a.m.
to
6:00
p.m.
from
Monday
to
Friday
and
restricted
on
“game
days”.
He
said
that
there
were
no
reserved
spots
in
the
Sky
Dome.
The
Appellant
submitted
that
a
benefit
not
used
is
not
a
benefit
received.
He
submitted
also
that
he
should
only
have
been
assessed
a
benefit
of
$360
because
he
only
used
the
parking
spot,
at
most,
for
20
percent
of
the
year.
Analysis
and
Conclusion:
This
issue
was
considered
by
Judge
Rip
in
Soper
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(1987),
87
D.T.C.
522
(T.C.C.).
In
that
case
a
corporation
purchased
three
houses
in
Florida
and
later
sold
same.
During
the
years
in
question,
the
Appellant,
the
controlling
shareholder
of
the
corporation,
was
able
to
use
one
of
the
properties
whenever
she
wished.
She
chose
to
use
it
for
a
few
weeks
only
each
year.
The
issue
was
whether
the
benefit
conferred
on
her
was
equal
to
the
fair
rental
value
for
the
whole
year
or
only
for
such
time
as
she
actually
used
the
premises.
This
Court
found
that
the
Minister
was
correct
in
determining
the
quantum
of
benefit
by
using
the
fair
rental
value
approach
because
the
properties
were
clearly
being
maintained
for
the
shareholder
all
year
round
and
she
received
substantially
all
of
the
benefit
to
the
exclusion
of
everyone
else.
Whether
the
Appellant
used
the
property
is
of
little
consequence.
It
was
available
to
him
and
was
accordingly
a
benefit
to
him.
He
adduced
no
evidence
to
establish
that
the
value
of
the
assigned
exclusive
parking
spot
was
less
than
that
assessed
by
the
Minister.
In
the
circumstances,
the
Appellant
cannot
succeed
in
his
appeal.
Accordingly,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content