- 13 -
If we adopt respondent’s position, ministers eligible for an
exclusion under section 107(2) will face a compliance burden not
imposed on ministers eligible under section 107(1). Under
respondent’s position, ministers who receive a rental allowance
could be required to obtain an estimate of the rental value of
their home every year in order to know how much to exclude under
section 107(2). This burden is not imposed on ministers for whom
homes are provided, the rental value of which is excludable under
section 107(1), because they may simply exclude the value of the
home without any need to estimate the rental value. In the
instant case, the parties stipulated the rental value for each
year. However, the burden of obtaining valuation estimates could
become onerous where rental value is in dispute. We decline to
endorse this disparate treatment here by imposing potentially
burdensome valuation obligations where neither the statute nor
the legislative history so requires.
There may be concern that, under section 107(2), a minister
might exclude from income the cost of an expensive home.
However, respondent does not contend that petitioner’s home was
improperly expensive. In any event, a more expensive home
presumably would have a greater rental value which presumably
would be excludable under respondent’s approach. There may also
be concern that a minister with additional income from another
source could spend more for housing, and thus have a larger
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011