Sénéchal v. The Queen

Sénéchal v. The Queen

The appellants were elected union officers who undertook representative duties and received remuneration (paid by their employer while on union leave) tied to those duties; many of the amounts paid by the union were fixed allowances or reimbursements without supporting documentation and thus constituted taxable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2011 TCC 365
Parties
Appellant: Marc Sénéchal; Appellant: Richard Gagné; Appellant: Denis Boucher; Appellant: Michel Bergeron; Appellant: Denis Harvey; Appellant: Hélène Leclerc; Appellant: Dominic Lemieux; Appellant: André Parent; Appellant: Charles Parent; Appellant: Jocelyn Simard; Appellant: Michel Simard; Appellant: Luc Turcotte; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
Court
Tax Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Reassessments Under the Income Tax Act (tax Court of Canada) / Judgment (final)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; assessments confirmed
Legal Topics
Taxable Benefits, Allowances Vs Reimbursements, Definition of Office/employment, Union Leave, Travel and Motor Vehicle Allowances
Source Language
en
Tax Law Labour/employment Law Administrative Law Taxable Benefits Allowances Vs Reimbursements Definition of Office/employment Union Leave Travel and Motor Vehicle Allowances

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marc Sénéchal

Appellant

Richard Gagné

Appellant

Denis Boucher

Appellant

Michel Bergeron

Appellant

Denis Harvey

Appellant

Hélène Leclerc

Appellant

Dominic Lemieux

Appellant

André Parent

Appellant

Charles Parent

Appellant

Jocelyn Simard

Appellant

Michel Simard

Appellant

Luc Turcotte

Appellant

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Reassessments Under the Income Tax Act (tax Court of Canada) / Judgment (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amounts paid or reimbursed by the union to police‑officer executives were taxable benefits under ss.5 and 6 of the Income Tax Act
  2. 2 Whether appellants were holders of an office or employment (s.248(1)) such that allowances constitute employment income
  3. 3 Whether travel and motor vehicle allowances qualified as reasonable allowances under s.6(1)(b)(vii) and (vii.1)

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants were elected union officers who undertook representative duties and received remuneration (paid by their employer while on union leave) tied to those duties; many of the amounts paid by the union were fixed allowances or reimbursements without supporting documentation and thus constituted taxable benefits under s.6(1)(b); travel and meal allowances for activities within the merged municipality did not qualify as travel away or reasonable motor vehicle allowances; evidence was insufficient to show exemptions or that funds paid to the treasurer were redistributed to named employees — therefore assessments adding the amounts to income were confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; assessments confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals from the reassessments under the Income Tax Act for the 2002, 2003 and 2004 taxation years are dismissed and the assessments are confirmed.