Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19971211


Docket: A-625-96

CORAM:      THE CHIEF JUSTICE

         PRATTE J.A.

         MARCEAU J.A.

BETWEEN:

     SANDRA E. GERNHART

     Appellant

     - and -

     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

     Respondent

Heard at Ottawa, Ontario on Thursday, December 11, 1997.

Judgment delivered from the bench at Ottawa, Ontario on Thursday, December 11, 1997.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:      THE COURT


Date: 19971211


Docket: A-625-96

CORAM:      THE CHIEF JUSTICE

         PRATTE J.A.

         MARCEAU J.A.

BETWEEN:

     SANDRA E. GERNHART

     Appellant

     - and -

     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

     (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario

     on Thursday, December 11, 1997)

[1]      We are all of the view that this appeal cannot succeed. As the learned Tax Court Judge characterized it in his reasons (A.B. p. 512), the payment in issue in this appeal was "made pursuant to the appellant's overall, on-going compensation package for services rendered" in Canada as an employee of General Motors of Canada Limited. As such it was income of the Appellant for the taxation year 1990 within the meaning of subsection 5(1) of the Income Tax Act, it being salary, wages, or other renumeration from her employment. On this basis alone, the learned Tax Court Judge was right in dismissing the Appellant's appeal from the Minister's assessment for the 1990 taxation year.

[2]      Even if the taxability of the amount in issue in this appeal were governed by section 6 of the Act, as if there had been a real reimbursement for an expense actually made, then the line of jurisprudence such as Ransom v. M.N.R. [1967] C.T.C. 346, 67 D.T.C. 5235 (Ex Ct) and the cases following it, upon which the appellant relies, would not be applicable. The reason is that each of those cases dealt with losses or payments made by the employee in order to perform the services and not as here, an expense made by him as a consequence of the receipt of the renumeration.

[3]      The appeal will therefore be dismissed with costs.

                             "Julius A. Isaac"

     C.J.


FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT FILE NO.: A-625-96

STYLE OF CAUSE:Sandra E. Gernhart v. The Queen

PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa

DATE OF HEARING: December 11, 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

RENDERED FROM THE BENCH BY: The Chief Justice Pratte, Marceau J.J.A.

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Richard Pound, Q.C. Mr. R. Murray

Mr. J. Baxendale for the Appellant

Mr. R. Leclair for the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Stikeman, Elliot

Montreal for the Appellant

George Thomson

Deputy Attorney General for the Respondent

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.