Date: 20010709
Docket: 2000-4442-IT-I
BETWEEN:
TRACEY ANNE BURNS,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons for Judgment
Hamlyn, D.
[1] This appeal was heard in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on June 27, 2001.
[2] In computing income for the 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years, the Appellant deducted the amount of $8,000, $7,800 and $7,800, respectively (the "Amounts") as child care expenses. The Appellant's 1995, 1996 and 1997 income tax returns were assessed as filed.
[3] By Notices of Reassessment dated February 10, 1999 the Minister disallowed the Appellant's child care expenses for the 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years.
[4] The issue is whether the Appellant is entitled to claim child care expenses in the amounts of $8,000, $7,800 and $7,800 in the 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years.
[5] In assessing the Appellant, the Minister relied on the following assumptions: (The Appellant accepted all of the assumptions except paragraph (f)).
(a) the Appellant claimed child care expenses in the amounts of $8,000, $7,800 and $7,800 for the 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years, respectively;
(b) the Appellant was asked to provide receipts to support her claim for child care expenses for the 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years;
(c) the Appellant provided a receipt issued in the name of Dorothy Whitty (the "Receipt") for the 1996 taxation year;
(d) the Receipt was not prepared or signed by Dorothy Whitty;
(e) the Receipt was prepared and signed by the Appellant;
(f) the Appellant did not respond to a request from the Minister to provide receipts or cancelled cheques for child care expenses claimed on her 1995 and 1997 income tax returns.
[6] From the Appellant's Notice of Appeal as adopted by her in the course of her evidence the Appellant stated:
- During my 1996 tax filing, I had a receipt by Dorothy Whitty, She provided me with her SIN number and I called her from U & R Tax Office stating that I needed her signature on the receipt. She gave me permission to sign this receipt which I did and received my refund.
- She then advised Revenue Canada that she did not babysit for me and refused responsibility. I was at fault for signing the receipt and advised Revenue Canada that I was unable to force her to do so.
- They then proceeded with a review of my income and decided (very quickly) that three years were under review and all were reassessed and I was cancelled for those years. I might add that I had two other individuals providing child care (1995 & 1997) and was able to provide them with official receipts in which were given to U & R Tax Depot who then provided them to Revenue Canada during that specific taxation year.[1]
I am a single mother of two young girls and have always worked hard to provide a good home to them without any child support.
[7] This case turns on the Appellant's evidence to show that she incurred and paid for child care expenses she claimed in her 1995, 1996 and 1997 income tax returns.
[8] At the outset of her evidence the Appellant conceded her claim could not be sustained for the 1996 taxation year.
[9] For the 1995 and 1997 taxation years the Appellant stated she lost or at least could not find her child care expense records and receipts. She did say that she filed her receipts with a tax filing service, U & R Tax Depot, who prepared her return, filed the return electronically and U & R Depot issued her a refund cheque within 24 hours.
[10] The Appellant stated the receipts she filed with the U & R Tax Depot were not exact, as some of her child care providers would not issue receipts and others initially promised receipts but backed out at the year-end. The Appellant also stated that some receipts would reflect child care services that were not rendered by the alleged child care provider.
[11] The Appellant attempted to subpoena the owner of U & R Tax Depot for trial but was unsuccessful.
ANALYSIS
[12] The purpose of the child care expense provision is to allow for a measure of relief to parents who incur child care expenses so that they are able to work outside the home.
[13] The Appellant, in an effort to provide child care services to her children, found it necessary to deal with the provision of these services in a child care service market climate where some child care service providers will not give receipts or renege on providing receipts after promised or where manufactured receipts can be obtained from individuals who have not rendered services.
[14] When an assessment is challenged, the Appellant's obligation is to bring clear evidence to support her claims. The Appellant was unable to bring this Court any other evidence, including the child care providers, possible receipts, cancelled cheques or other records to support her stated position.
[15] In this case the Minister has disallowed the claimed child care expenses because of a lack of documentation by the Appellant.
[16] Several decisions of the Tax Court of Canada have held a lack of documentation is not fatal to an appeal, however the Appellant must establish the expenditures with some precision.[2]
[17] The problem that exists in this case for 1996 is that the Appellant has admitted she signed the receipt herself and the Appellant in her evidence for 1995 and 1997 could not be precise in her statements in relation to the amounts of the expenditures and she further stated the amounts claimed were only approximations. This statement of ambiguity is a formidable obstacle in the Appellant's case.
[18] The Appellant has the onus and the burden of proof to show the Minister's assessment was incorrect. Unfortunately, in this case the Court is aware that some child care expense expenditures were actually made. However the Appellant has not been able, with any precision, clarity or substance, to provide compelling evidence to support specifically her claims for child care expenses for the 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years. As such the Appellant has not met the onus to show the Minister's assessments are in error.
DECISION
[19] The appeals are dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 9th day of July 2001.
"D. Hamlyn"
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE NO.: 2000-4442(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: Tracey Anne Burns and
Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE OF HEARING: June 27 and 28, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Judge D. Hamlyn
DATE OF JUDGMENT: July 9, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant herself
Counsel for the Respondent: Marcel Prevost
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the Respondent: Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
2000-4442(IT)I
BETWEEN:
TRACEY ANNE BURNS,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on June 27 and 28, 2001, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, by
the Honourable Judge D. Hamlyn
Appearances
For the Appellant: The Appellant herself
Counsel for the Respondent: Marcel Prevost
JUDGMENT
The appeals from the assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years are dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 9th day of July 2001.
|
"D. Hamlyn" |
J.T.C.C.