Date: 20001109
Docket: 98-2-OAS
BETWEEN:
PAUL CHUBAK,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA,
Respondent.
Reasons for Decision and Decision
Beaubier, J.T.C.C.
[1] This appeal was heard at Kelowna, British Columbia on October 2, 2000. The Appellant was the only witness. The following are pertinent facts to this:
1. July 22, 1997, the Appellant wrote the following letter (constituting an appeal) to the Office of the Commissioner of Review Tribunals. It was filed as Exhibit A-1, and reads:
4615 20th Street
Vernon,B,C,
V1T 4E6
250-549-8433
S.I.N. ("omitted")
Income Security Programs
P.O. Box 1177
Victoria, B.C.
V8W 2V2
To whom it may concern:
I am writing this letter to appeal your decision that I am no longer eligible to receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
In 1996 I withdrew $23,000.00 from an RRSP. I used $11,000.00 to pay down my mortgage and the remainder to do renovations. We now find ourselves with a very low monthly income. I receive the OAS and $624.49 CPP. My wife has no income. I did not realize that when I cashed in my RRSP I would lose my Supplement.
My expenses are as follows: Property Taxes $ 43.16
Insurance $ 25.00
Hydro $ 40.75
Heating $ 84.94
Mortgage $542.48
Dental $ 35.50
Auto Insurance $ 34.41
Water, Sewer etc. $ 29.60
Total $835.85
These are only my absolute expenses, they do not include food, travel and misc. expenses. As my monthly income is $1027.00 this does not leave much left over.
I hope that after reviewing my case you will consider my appeal.
Truly yours,
Paul Chuback
"P. Chuback"
2. May 25, 1998, the Registrar of the Tax Court of Canada received a reference from the Commissioner pursuant to subsection 28(2) of the Old Age Security Act and enclosing the documents required under section 5 of the Review Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
[2] Subsection 28(3) of the Old Age Security Act ("OAS") requires that a determination as to income from a source shall be referred to the Tax Court of Canada for decision for the purposes of the appeal under the Old Age Security Act.
[3] The decision to be made by the Tax Court of Canada is whether the $23,000 which the Appellant withdrew from his RRSP in 1996 constituted income under the Income Tax Act.
[4] The said $23,000 is income to the Appellant in 1996 under the Income Tax Act, and
1. Paragraph 56(1)(h) of the Income Tax Act states that amounts required by section 46 to be included in income shall be included in income in that year, and
2. Section 146 makes this withdrawal from the Appellant's RRSP income for that year.
That is so decided.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada this 9th day of November, 2000.
|
"D. W. Beaubier" |
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE NO.: 98-2(OAS)
STYLE OF CAUSE: Paul Chubak v. Minister of Human
Resources Development Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Kelowna, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: October 2, 2000
REASONS FOR DECISION BY: The Honourable Judge D. W. Beaubier
DATE OF DECISION: November 9, 2000
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent: Victor Avery Caux
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the Respondent: Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada