A
W
Prociuk:—The
appellant
appeals
from
the
Minister’s
assessment
for
the
year
1965
wherein
an
additional
$1,643.07
was
added
to
the
appellant’s
declared
income
for
that
year.
The
case
was
heard
on
September
22,
1970
at
a
hearing
held
at
the
City
of
Vancouver,
in
the
Province
of
British
Columbia,
at
which
the
presiding
member
was
J
O
Weldon,
Esq,
QC,
then
a
member
of
the
Tax
Appeal
Board
which,
on
December
15,
1971,
became
the
Tax
Review
Board.
However,
judgment
was
reserved
and
no
decision
rendered
by
him
prior
to
his
retirement
from
the
Board
in
March
of
1972.
Accordingly,
by
consent
of
both
parties,
this
Board
has
now
been
given
jurisdiction
to
issue
its
decision
and
judgment
on
the
basis
of
the
transcript
of
the
evidence
and
the
argument
before
Mr
Weldon,
without
further
representation
by
counsel.
In
the
year
in
question
the
appellant
was
employed
as
sales
manager
by
Construction
Equipment
Company
Limited,
a
division
of
The
Foundation
Company
of
Canada.
Construction
Equipment
Company
was,
in
1964
and
1965,
a
distributor
for
Clark
Equipment
Company
and
qualified
as
top
distributor
in
1964.
Clark
Equipment
Company
invited
Construction
Equipment
Company
to
send
its
principal
officers
to
attend
the
“Winter
Distributor
Sales
Meeting”
in
Jamaica
in
February
1965.
The
officers
of
Construction
Equipment
Company
were
otherwise
engaged
and
the
president
nominated
and
requested
the
appellant
to
attend.
The
appellant
cancelled
his
other
plans
and,
accompanied
by
his
wife,
attended
the
said
meeting
which
lasted
for
one
week.
Clark
Equipment
Company
expended
a
sum
of
$1,643.07
in
payment
of
the
expenses
incurred
by
the
appellant
and
his
wife.
The
Minister
states
that
this
was
a
benefit
received
by
the
appellant
by
virtue
of
his
employment
and
therefore
taxable.
From
the
evidence
it
is
very
clear
that
the
sole
purpose
of
this
meeting
was
to
promote
and
increase
the
sale
of
Clark
Equipment
Company
products
which
company
organized
and
paid
for
the
conference.
The
appellant
was
not
an
employee
of
Clark
Equipment
Company
at
any
time,
and,
his
attendance
at
the
conference
was
at
the
request
of
his
employer,
Construction
Equipment
Company.
His
attendance
was
clearly
in
the
course
of
his
employment
and
not
in
the
nature
of
an
award.
The
appeal,
accordingly,
is
allowed.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content