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.