Date: 19980403
Docket: 97-1243-IT-I
BETWEEN:
DONALD R. RICHMOND,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons for Judgment
Bell, J.T.C.C.
ISSUE:
[1] The issue is whether the Appellant received a benefit in the amount of $1,800 in his 1993 taxation year under paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act ("Act").
FACTS:
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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:
[6] This issue was considered by Judge Rip in Soper v. M.N.R., 87 DTC 522. 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.
[7] 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.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada this 3rd day of April, 1998.
"R.D. Bell"
J.T.C.C.