[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
2000-132(IT)I
BETWEEN:
WALTER NICKERSON,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on June 26, 2001, at Bathurst, New Brunswick, by
the Honourable Deputy Judge D.R. Watson
Appearances
Agent for the Appellant: Calixte Chiasson
Counsel for the Respondent: Vlad Zolia
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 1997 taxation year is dismissed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 25th day of July 2001.
|
"D.R. Watson" |
D.J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 21st day of January 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Date: 20010725
Docket: 2000-132(IT)I
BETWEEN:
WALTER NICKERSON,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Watson, D.J.T.C.C.
[1] This appeal was heard at Bathurst, New Brunswick, on June 16, 2001, under the informal procedure.
[2] In computing his income for the 1997 taxation year, the appellant deducted $5,512 as a tuition credit and $1,800 as an education credit.
[3] By Notice of Reassessment dated October 26, 1998, the Minister of National Revenue ("the Minister") disallowed the credits of $5,512 and $1,800.
[4] In confirming the reassessment for that year, the Minister assumed the following facts, inter alia:
[TRANSLATION]
(a) during the 1997 taxation year, the appellant received $9,943 and $2,112, for a total of $12,055, from Human Resources Development Canada ("HRDC");
(b) the $12,055 was included in computing his income for the 1997 taxation year;
(c) as stated in subparagraph 8(a), $5,457 of the $12,055 was given to the New Brunswick Community College ("NBCC") to pay the tuition fees for the appellant's secondary school training course;
(d) as described in subparagraph 8(c), the training course was not at a post-secondary school level;
(e) as stated in subparagraph 8(a), $6,597 of the $12,055 was paid to the appellant as a living and transportation allowance for his secondary school training course;
(f) the educational program was not a qualifying educational program within the meaning of section 118.6 of the Act; and
(g) the appellant cannot claim an education credit.
[5] When the appeal was heard, the agent for the appellant admitted the facts alleged in subparagraphs (a) to (e) and denied the facts alleged in subparagraphs (f) and (g) of paragraph 8 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal.
[6] The burden of proof is on the appellant, who must show on the balance of evidence that the reassessment is wrong in fact and in law. Each case stands on its own merits.
[7] In his Reply to the Notice of Appeal, the Minister now acknowledges that the $5,457 received by the appellant was a payment relating to a course or program designed to facilitate the re-entry into the labour force of an employment insurance claimant and that, pursuant to subparagraph 56(1)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Act ("the Act"), that amount ought not to have been included in the appellant's income in the 1997 taxation year.
[8] The only issue is whether the Minister was justified in denying the appellant the education credit of $1,800.
[9] The provisions of the Act relevant to this appeal read in part as follows:
SECTION 118.6 : Definitions.
(1) For the purposes of this subdivision,
...
"designated educational institution" - "designated educational institution" means
(a) an educational institution in Canada that is
(i) a university, college or other educational institution designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of a province as a specified educational institution under the Canada Student Loans Act, designated by an appropriate authority under the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, or designated by the Minister of Higher Education and Science of the Province of Quebec for the purposes of An Act respecting financial assistance for students of the Province of Quebec, or
(ii) certified by the Minister of Human Resources Development to be an educational institution providing courses, other than courses designed for university credit, that furnish a person with skills for, or improve a person's skills in, an occupation,
...
"qualifying educational program" - "qualifying educational program" means a program of not less than 3 consecutive weeks duration that provides that each student taking the program spend not less than 10 hours per week on courses or work in the program and, in respect of a program at an institution described in the definition "designated educational institution" (other than an institution described in subparagraph (a)(ii) thereof), that is a program at a post-secondary school level but, in relation to any particular student, does not include any such program
(a) if the student receives, from a person with whom the student is dealing at arm's length, any allowance, benefit, grant or reimbursement for expenses in respect of the program other than
(i) an amount received by the student as or on account of a scholarship, fellowship or bursary, or a prize for achievement in a field of endeavour ordinarily carried on by the student, or
(ii) a benefit, if any, received by the student by reason of a loan made to the student in accordance with the requirements of the Canada Student Loans Act or An Act respecting financial assistance for students of the Province of Quebec, or by reason of financial assistance given to the student in accordance with the requirements of the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, or
(b) if the program is taken by the student
(i) during a period in respect of which the student receives income from an office or employment, and
(ii) in connection with, or as part of the duties of, that office or employment.
(2) Education credit. For the purpose of computing the tax payable under this Part by an individual for a taxation year, there may be deducted an amount determined by the formula
A x $100 x B
where
A is the appropriate percentage for the year, and
B is the number of months in the year during which the individual is enrolled in a qualifying educational program as a full-time student at a designated educational institution,
if the enrolment is proven by filing with the Minister a certificate in prescribed form issued by the designated educational institution and containing prescribed information and, in respect of a designated educational institution described in subparagraph (a)(ii) of the definition "designated educational institution" in subsection (1), the student is enrolled in the program to obtain skills for, or improve the student's skills in, an occupation.
[10] The appellant was the only person who testified at the hearing. He demonstrated that he acted in good faith when he deducted the $1,800 as an education credit, relying on incorrect information and advice from other people.
[11] Considering all the circumstances of this appeal, including the appellant's testimony, the admissions and the documentary evidence, the Court is satisfied that the appellant has not been able to show on the balance of evidence that the Minister was wrong in fact and in law to disallow the education credit of $1,800. Since the appellant took secondary school courses at an institution not certified by the Minister of Human Resources Development, he was not enrolled in a "qualifying educational program" within the meaning of section 118.6.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 25th day of July 2001.
|
"D.R. Watson" |
D.J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 21st day of January 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor