Rowe
D.J.T.C.
(orally):
Further
to
the
discussions
held
with
the
Appellant,
the
Appellant
appealed
with
respect
to
an
assessment
of
income
tax
for
his
1996
taxation
year.
The
Minister
of
National
Revenue
reassessed
the
Appellant
in
respect
of
that
year
to
include
as
additional
income
from
office
or
employment
from
his
employer,
the
Government
of
Canada,
a
taxable
benefit
in
the
amount
of
$4,005.00.
The
Minister,
in
reassessing,
made
certain
assumptions
of
fact
as
set
out
in
the
Reply
to
the
Notice
of
Appeal
and
these
assumptions
were
not
contested
by
the
Appellant.
At
all
material
times
in
1996,
the
Appellant
was
an
employee
of
the
Government
of
Canada.
As
a
result
of
the
Appellant’s
employment
with
the
employer,
he
submitted
a
suggestion
with
respect
to
a
throttle
control
assembly
of
the
CF-18
fighter
aircraft,
and
as
a
consequence,
his
employer
awarded
him,
under
a
suggestion
award
program,
the
amount
of
$4,005.00.
The
Minister
of
National
Revenue
regarded
this
amount
of
$4,005.00
as
being
a
benefit
received
or
enjoyed
by
the
Appellant
in
respect
of,
in
the
course
of
or
by
virtue
of
the
Appellant’s
office
or
employment
with
the
employer,
the
Government
of
Canada
and
that
it
was
appropriately
and
quite
properly
included
into
income
in
the
1996
taxation
year.
The
Appellant’s
inquiry
to
the
Court
was
whether
or
not
the
Court
could,
under
these
particular
circumstances,
make
a
distinction
with
regard
to
the
nature
of
the
funds
received
and
the
fact
the
particular
suggestion
made
by
him
has,
to
date,
in
his
estimation,
saved
the
Canadian
public
over
$300,000.00.
In
his
view
it
would,
in
the
case
especially
of
the
government,
be
more
appropriate
if
amounts
received
pursuant
to
such
a
program
were
in
fact
considered
as
honourariums
or
in
the
form
of
a
voluntary
payment
rather
than
an
amount
that
would
fall
into
income
and
then
be
subject
to
taxation.
The
Income
Tax
Act,
however,
is
clear
and
the
jurisprudence
is
clear
that
this
particular
amount
received
under
the
circumstances
that
it
was
received
is
an
amount
that
very
clearly
has
to
fall
into
employment
income.
The
jurisdiction
of
this
Court
being
to
determine
whether
or
not
the
assessment
of
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
is
correct
or
not,
is
hereby
exercised
in
this
fashion
by
my
stating
that
the
Minister
was,
in
fact,
correct
and
that,
as
a
consequence,
the
appeal
is
hereby
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content