1999-2151(IT)I
BETWEEN:
CECILIA KYEI-BOATENG,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on June 26, 2000 at Toronto, Ontario by
the Honourable Judge Terrence P. O'Connor
Appearances
Agent for the Appellant: Raymond Frempong
Counsel for the Respondent: Sherry Darvish
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the reassessment 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 14th day of July, 2000.
|
"T. P. O'Connor" |
|
J.T.C.C.
Date: 20000714
Docket: 1999-2151(IT)I
BETWEEN:
CECILIA KYEI-BOATENG,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
O'Connor, J.T.C.C.
ISSUE:
[1] The issue in this appeal is whether in the 1997 year the Appellant was entitled to the equivalent-to-married credit of $914.60 ($5380 x 17%) in computing the total of her non-refundable tax credits. This in turn will be determined by whether in the 1997 year one Joseph Oduro is to be considered as the Appellant's spouse. The Respondent contends that in that year, the Appellant lived in a common-law relationship with Joseph Oduro and consequently he was her spouse within the meaning of sub-section 252(4) of the Income Tax Act ("Act").
FACTS:
[2] The Appellant testified that in 1997 she was single. That she had previously been married to one John Boateng but she divorced. The Appellant had two children, one Millicent, whose father was the said John Appiah-Korang and one Devin Oduro, born October 31, 1994 who, the Appellant confirms, was the son of the said Joseph Oduro.
[3] The Appellant further testified that Joseph Oduro, to her knowledge, moved to Brampton in 1996 and remained in Brampton in 1997 and therefore did not live with her in a common-law relationship.
[4] Testimony was also given by one Cesare Chiarotto, an Appeals Officer with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. He filed an Affidavit (R-2) which explains the Agency's practice of transferring taxation information to a computerized data base system upon receipt of a tax return. This Affidavit includes several exhibits which Mr. Chiarotto reviewed in detail. Exhibit "D" relates to information pertaining to Joseph Appiah-Koffi Oduro ("Joseph") indicates that his address in 1997 was 120 Acorn Place, Apt. 309, that his marital status was common-law and that his spouse's name was "Ceci". That Exhibit also establishes that the social insurance number of Joseph was 506 731 199. Exhibit "A", which relates to the Appellant indicates her matrimonial status in 1997 as being common-law and indicates that the spouse's name was John but the social insurance number is the same as that for Joseph, namely, 506 731 199. Further, Exhibit "B" also relating to the Appellant, indicates that in 1997 she was common-law. Exhibit "C" indicates a change of address to Apt. 406 at 120 Acorn Place in May of 1998. Also, with respect to 1998, the marital status of the Appellant indicated in Exhibit "C" is still common-law and the spouse's name is still indicated as being John from whom the Appellant said she was divorced as early as 1991. Exhibit "E" to the Affidavit indicates that the address of Joseph Oduro became 56 Dansbury Crescent, Brampton, Ontario on October 9, 1998. Exhibit R-4, which is similar in form to the Affidavit Exhibits, indicates that the Appellant moved to Apt. 309 at 120 Acorn Place on April 15, 1996. Exhibit R-1 being a copy of the T-1 general return for 1997 of the Appellant crosses out the indication of her being single at the end of December, 1997 and completes the box indicating married as of that date.
[5] In my opinion there are too many inconsistencies in the testimony of the Appellant when weighed against the apparent contradictory facts disclosed in the Affidavit and the Exhibits mentioned above. Morever, no substantiating testimony was given and no documents showing dates of marriage or divorce or rental agreements with respect to the apartments were supplied.
[6] Consequently on a balance of probabilities, I am of the view that during 1997 the Appellant co-habited with Mr. Joseph Oduro in a conjugal relationship and that the latter was therefore a spouse within the meaning of subsection 252(4) of the Act. Consequently in 1997 she was not entitled to the equivalent to married credit.
[7] As a result the appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, this 14th day of July, 2000.
|
"T. P. O'Connor" |
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE NO.: 1999-2151(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: Cecilia Kyei-Boateng v. Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 26, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable T. P. O'Connor
DATE OF JUDGMENT: July 14, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Agent for the Appellant: Raymond Frempong
Counsel for the Respondent: Sherry Darvish
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the Respondent: Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada