BETWEEN:
BERNICE HEAMAN,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on May 30, 2005 at Brandon, Manitoba
Before: The Honourable Justice R.D. Bell
Appearances:
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessment made under the Old Age Pension Act with respect to the 2000 base calendar year and the July 2001 to June 2002 payment period is dismissed in accordance with the Reasons for Judgment
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 17th day of February, 2006.
"R.D. Bell"
BETWEEN:
BERNICE HEAMAN,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ISSUES
1. For the purpose of computing the Guaranteed Income Supplement ("GIS") of the Appellant's spouse and computing the Appellant's spousal allowance, is the amount of $2,133.01, being the amount of pay equity respecting the Appellant's 1993 and 1994 taxation years, received by the Appellant in her 2000 taxation year, includable in her 2000 taxation year?
2. For the purpose of both such computations is the Appellant's spouse entitled to estimate his income for the "base calendar year" (2000) without the determination of the actual amount of his income and the Appellant's income for that period having been made?
FACTS
[2] The Appellant testified that she had worked for the federal government in 1993 and 1994 and that she retired in 1994.
[3] The Appellant received a pay equity payment of $2,133.01 on September 15, 2000, being payment for a retroactive salary adjustment for past employment, namely 1993 and 1994.
[4] In May 2001 the Appellant completed a Statement of Estimated Income after Retirement form for 2001, by check marking the box for payments received as pension income, employment insurance or a workers' compensation benefit and specifying that she received a lump sum Pay Equity Payment in 2000.
[5] By letter dated September 5, 2001 the Minister of Human Resources Development informed the Appellant that the pay equity payment she received in 2000 was not eligible for the Estimate because the payment did not constitute a retroactive lump sum payment for pension income, employment insurance or a workers' compensation benefit or lump sum replacing any future periodic or monthly payments from that benefit.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
[6] The term "base calendar year" is the last calendar year ending before the current payment period. The current payment period in this case is July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002.
[7] A GIS is a monthly benefit provided to low income senior citizens who receive an old age security pension and are resident in Canada. A spousal allowance is a monthly benefit provided to low income earners at a certain age level who are Canadian residents and, as in this case, married, where a spouse is entitled to receive an old age security pension and a GIS. The computation of both takes into account the combined income of the Appellant and her husband for the base calendar year. The Appellant sought to describe the sum of $2,133.01 as an amount that should be deducted from their joint income, the result of which deduction would be an increase in the GIS and spousal allowance. She did so on the basis that the amount referred to two prior taxation years, namely those in which she worked for the federal government and not for the year of receipt. However, the section of the Old Age Security Act which provides that an Estimate can be made reads, as to its pertinent portions, as follows:
14.(2) - Where in a current payment period a person who is an applicant ceases to hold an office or employment, ... that person may ... file a statement of the person's estimated income, other than the estimated income from that office or employment ... for the calendar year in which the person ceased to hold that office or employment ... in which case the person's income for the base calendar year shall be calculated as the total of ... the person's income for that calendar year, calculated as though the person had no income from that office or employment ...
It is apparent from the foregoing that as the Appellant retired in 1994 and as the aforesaid sum was received in 2000, that option was not available to the Appellant.
[7] The word "income" is defined in section 2 of the Old Age Security Act to mean:
... income for the year, computed in accordance with the Income Tax Act, ...
Section 5 of the Income Tax Act states, in part:
... a taxpayer's income for a taxation year from an office or employment is the salary, wages and other remuneration ... received by the taxpayer in the year.
[8] There is no legislation permitting the inclusion of income with reference to a prior period to be included in the income of that prior period. One cannot imagine that if such income was allocable to a prior period it would escape taxation. The amount of $2,133.01 was clearly "received"[1] in 2000 and is properly includable in that year.
[9] The legislative provisions and regulations, rules and forms, governing old age security payments and other payments of social assistance are far too complex. It is literally impossible for one to comprehend same easily. They are not only complex but are not well drafted and presented. All provisions relating to these matters affecting senior citizens should be simply stated and easily understandable. If they were easily understood, taxpayers such as the present Appellant would not be put to the expense of money and time in an effort to determine their financial obligations and entitlements.
[10] The appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada this 17h day of February, 2006.
|
"R.D. Bell" |
Bell, J.
COURT FILE NO.: 2004-3988(OAS)
STYLE OF CAUSE: Bernice Heaman and
The Minister of Human Resources Development
PLACE OF HEARING: Brandon, Manitoba
REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT BY: The Honourable Justice R.D. Bell
DATE OF JUDGMENT: February 17, 2006
APPEARANCES:
|
Counsel for the Appellant: |
The Appellant Herself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Penny L. Piper |
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
Firm:
For the Respondent: John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario