[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
2000-1994(IT)I
BETWEEN:
ANDRÉ VILLENEUVE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on June 18, 2001, at Québec, Quebec, by
the Honourable Judge Alain Tardif
Appearances
For the Appellant: The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent: Stéphane Arcelin
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the 1997 and 1998 taxation years is dismissed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 14th day of January 2002.
|
"Alain Tardif" |
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 31tst day of March 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Date: 20020114
Docket: 2000-1994(IT)I
BETWEEN:
ANDRÉ VILLENEUVE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Tardif, J.T.C.C.
[1] This is an appeal for the 1997 and 1998 taxation years.
[2] The point for determination is whether the amounts of $6,032 for 1997 and $12,237 for 1998 were allowable as support or other allowance payable on a periodic basis with respect to the said taxation years.
[3] In making and confirming the reassessments dated respectively July 26 and October 12, 1999, the respondent made the following assumptions of fact:
[TRANSLATION]
(a) the appellant and Martine Nadeau (hereinafter the "former spouse") were divorced on January 19, 1993;
(b) the appellant and his former spouse are the parents of Audrey, born on September 22, 1982, (hereinafter the "child");
(c) an agreement on corollary relief was amended by judgment signed by the Honourable Judge Gérald Boisvert of the Superior Court of Quebec on July 7, 1997;
(d) that judgment amended the agreement on corollary relief confirmed by the judgment of January 19, 1993;
(e) the payments totalling $6,032 in 1997 and $12,237 in 1998 made by the appellant for the needs of his child do not qualify as support;
(f) consequently, the Minister disallowed the appellant the respective amounts of $6,032 for the 1997 taxation year and $12,237 for the 1998 taxation year claimed by him in respect of support or other allowance payable on a periodic basis.
[4] After being sworn, the appellant admitted all the facts assumed by the respondent.
[5] The parties agreed to file the relevant documentary evidence as Exhibit I-1.
[6] The highly material judgment is the one the Honourable Gérald Boisvert of the Superior Court of Quebec rendered on July 7, 1997.
[7] The relevant excerpt from Judge Boisvert's judgment should be reproduced in full:
[TRANSLATION]
. . .
The applicant proved with supporting evidence that she had spent $12,659.82 to meet the needs of Audrey provided for in paragraph 14 of the agreement on corollary relief; the respondent thus owes her the sum of $6,329.91. To that amount must be added the two cheques for $162.75 each being the object of stop payments, with the result that the applicant's claim amounts to $6,655.41.
The Court notes that, since these expenses are, inter alia, expenses relating to activities previously provided for in paragraph 14, the applicant did not have to come to a prior agreement with the respondent. She claims nothing in respect of Audrey's travel.
As a result of the respondent's refusal to contribute to the specific needs of the child until he is able to exercise his access rights, it must be decided whether, in future, all the child's needs will be included in the support based on the parties' reciprocal ability to pay and the new provisions in effect since May 1.
The Court fixes the child's needs at $264 a week, from which must be deducted family allowances of $10.46, as a result of which her net needs are $253.54.
The applicant had income of $57,631.25 in 1996, but she received 27 pay cheques; her income that year will be greater than $54,000, excluding the interest produced by an RRSP, the principal of which is $58,240.
The respondent had income of $57,571 in 1996; he will incur a salary reduction of 4.2% in that year and will receive less in overtime because he chose to be remunerated half in time and half in salary and had worked only 25 hours of overtime at the time of the hearing. It is the Court's view that his income will be at least $47,000.
He fixes his monthly needs at $2,706.79 without provision for income taxes. In the Court's view, they are in the order of $2,300 instead.
The support payable by the respondent will thus be $510 a month.
BY THESE REASONS, THE COURT:
DISMISSES the respondent's motion;
ALLOWS the applicant's motion in part;
ORDERS the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $6,655.41 with interest and the additional indemnity on the amount of $4,470.24 between February 16, 1996, and June 11, 1997, and on the amount of $6,644.41 starting on June 12, 1997;
AMENDS the agreement on corollary relief confirmed by the judgment of January 19, 1997;
DECLARES that, in future, the share of all the needs of the child Audrey to be assumed by the respondent shall be payable out of the support;
ORDERS the respondent to pay the applicant support of $510 a month payable in accordance with the provisions of the Act to facilitate the payment of support;
THE WHOLE with costs against the respondent on the two motions.
. . .
[8] In view of the facts and text of the judgment rendered, there is no doubt that the amounts of $6,032 for 1997 and $12,237 for 1998 were not allowable as support or other allowance payable on a periodic basis under sections 3, 56, 56.1, 60, 60.1 and 248 of the Income Tax Act in their respective versions applicable to the instant case.
[9] For all these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 14th day of January 2002.
|
"Alain Tardif" |
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 31tst day of March 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor