Docket: 2009-2420(IT)I
BETWEEN:
JASON ALLOTT,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Before: The Honourable
Justice Steven K. D'Arcy
|
For the Appellant:
|
The Appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Jack Warren
|
____________________________________________________________________
EDITED VERSION OF TRANSCRIPT
OF ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Let the attached edited transcript of the
Reasons for Judgment, delivered orally from the Bench on March 11, 2010 at London, Ontario, be filed. I have edited the transcript (certified by
the Court Reporter) for style, clarity, and accuracy. I did not make any
substantive changes.
Signed
at Ottawa, Canada, this 3rd
day of May, 2010.
“S. D’Arcy”
Citation: 2010 TCC 232
Date: 20100318
Docket: 2009-2420(IT)I
BETWEEN:
JASON ALLOTT,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
EDITED VERSION OF TRANSCRIPT
OF ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered orally from
the Bench
on March 11, 2010 at London, Ontario)
D’Arcy J.
[1]
This appeal concerns the deductibility of child
care expenses pursuant to subsection 63(1) of the Income Tax Act.
[2]
When filing his return for the 2007 taxation
year, the Appellant claimed a deduction of $4,221 for amounts he asserted were
paid to two teenagers who babysat his children. The Appellant provided the
Court with a detailed statement evidencing the weekly payments made to the two
teenagers.
[3]
In addition, the Appellant provided the Court
with an acknowledgement letter issued by one of the teenagers confirming that
she had received the amount noted in the statement. A separate letter
containing the teenager's Social Insurance Number was also provided.
[4]
The spouse of the Appellant, Ms Allott,
testified for the Appellant. She noted that numerous attempts have
been made to obtain a receipt from the second teenager. However, the
teenager's parents have refused to provide the information or to provide
contact information for the teenager.
[5]
Ms Allott testified that the amounts in question
were paid to the teenagers.
[6]
Counsel for the Respondent has accepted that the
Appellant is entitled to deduct the $1,800 paid to the teenager who
provided the acknowledgement letter. However, he noted that it is the Respondent's
position that the Appellant is not entitled to deduct the amounts paid to the
second teenager since the Appellant has not provided a receipt issued by the
teenager.
[7]
The relevant words of subsection 63(1) are as
follows:
…where a prescribed form containing prescribed
information is filed with a taxpayer's return of income...under this Part for a
taxation year, there may be deducted in computing the taxpayer's income for the
year such amount as the taxpayer claims not exceeding the total of all amounts
each of which is an amount paid, as or on account of child care expenses
incurred for services rendered in the year in respect of an eligible child of
the taxpayer,
…
and the payment of which is proven by filing with the
Minister one or more receipts each of which was issued by the payee and
contains, where the payee is an individual, that individual's Social Insurance
Number…
[8]
This Court has ruled on numerous occasions that
the words requiring the filing of receipts are "directory" rather
than mandatory. Bowman J. (as he then was) noted in Senger-Hammond v. The
Queen, [1997] 1 CTC 2728 at paragraph 26:
The essence of section 63 is the deduction of child
care expenses, not the collection of tax from babysitters. The language of the
provision does not support the view that the filing of receipts is mandatory.
For one thing, the word 'shall' is not used. Rather it describes a method of
proof, which is clearly formal, evidentiary and procedural.
[9]
The law was summarized by Morgan J. in Dominguez
v. The Queen, [1998] 4 CTC 2222 at paragraph 10:
If the inquiry is blatantly result-oriented (I am
pleased to follow those refreshingly candid words), then I will adopt the label
which permits a court to determine as a matter of evidence whether a particular
taxpayer has incurred specific expenses on account of child care. In my
opinion, the requirement in subsection 63(1) that the Appellant file receipts
containing the S.I.N. of the payee is only directory. It is not imperative.
[10]
I accept the evidence of Ms Allott that the
expenses were incurred as detailed in the statement provided to the Court.
[11]
For these reasons, the appeal is allowed with
costs of $250, and the matter is referred back to the Minister for
reconsideration and reassessment on the basis that the Appellant was entitled
to deduct under section 63, in computing his taxable income for the 2007
taxation year, an amount for child care expenses of $4,221.
D’Arcy J.
CITATION: 2010 TCC 232
COURT FILE NO.: 2009-2420(IT)I
STYLE
OF CAUSE: JASON ALLOTT AND
HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: LONDON, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 11, 2010
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Justice
Steven
K. D'Arcy
DATE OF JUDGMENT: MARCH 18, 2010
APPEARANCES:
|
For the Appellant:
|
The Appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Jack Warren
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant: N/A
For the Respondent: Myles J.
Kirvan
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa,
Canada
Email this Content