[Verse 1] Phillips versus the Queen set the stage so clear Housing benefit doctrine, the test we hold dear Was the payment primarily for employer's gain? Or employee advantage? The court must explain CanLII searches reveal the pattern's design Section six and fifteen walk the same fine line [Chorus] Employer's benefit test, the golden key Primary purpose sets the employee free Housing accommodation, personal use too CRA says taxable, but courts review Benefit doctrine, benefit doctrine Where the law and admin don't align [Verse 2] Youngman shows us when relocation's required Company needs come first, benefit's not acquired But Splane reminds us personal enjoyment counts Mixed purposes mean the taxable amount Shareholder housing under fifteen's scope Same test applies, same judicial hope [Chorus] Employer's benefit test, the golden key Primary purpose sets the employee free Housing accommodation, personal use too CRA says taxable, but courts review Benefit doctrine, benefit doctrine Where the law and admin don't align [Bridge] Ten accommodation cases paint the scene Waffle versus Philips, what does it mean? Five shareholder disputes show the way Personal use versus business display The CRA position often too broad Courts look deeper at the purpose facade [Verse 3] Administrative guidance says "benefit received" But judicial wisdom asks "who was relieved" The employer's operational necessity Trumps the employee's mere accessibility Templeton, Huffman, the cases align Primary purpose draws the clearest line [Chorus] Employer's benefit test, the golden key Primary purpose sets the employee free Housing accommodation, personal use too CRA says taxable, but courts review Benefit doctrine, benefit doctrine Where the law and admin don't align [Outro] Map the doctrine across every case Find the divergence, know your place Benefits doctrine, weeks three and four Understanding opens up the door
← Phase 1 — Foundations (weeks 1–2) | Phase 3 — Enrichment Analysis (weeks 5–6) →