Docket: 2010-379(IT)I
BETWEEN:
NORMAND HAMEL,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal
heard on August 27, 2010, at Montréal, Quebec.
Before: The Honourable Alain
Tardif
Appearances:
|
Agent for the appellant:
|
Carmen Baron
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the respondent:
|
Simon Vincent
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessments made under
the Income Tax Act on July
30, 2009, for the 2008 taxation year, is dismissed, in
accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada,
this 14th day of October 2010.
“Alain Tardif”
Translation certified true
on this 6th day
of December 2010.
Daniela Possamai,
Translator
Citation: 2010 TCC 514
Date: 20101014
Docket: 2010-379(IT)I
BETWEEN:
NORMAND HAMEL,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Tardif J.
[1]
This is an appeal involving
a deduction of $50,000 claimed as support payments for the 2008 taxation
year and disallowed by the Minister of National Revenue (the Minister).
[2]
The issue is whether the
Minister was justified in disallowing the appellant’s deduction of $50,000 claimed
as support payments.
[3]
The appellant, who was
present at the hearing, was represented by his wife, Carmen Baron, who
testified. She explained that the couple had to pay the sum of $92,000 divided
into two components. The first amount of $42,000, which is not the subject of
the appeal, represented support payments, whereas the other portion of $50,000, paid
in two instalments, one of $10,000 and another of $40,000, was a provision
for costs, while the appellant submits that they were periodical payments that
should be considered support payments.
[4]
Ms. Baron explained
that the Canada Revenue Agency (the Agency) had indicated to her that
the first amount was paid as support and was not deductible because it was payable
to the benefit and profit of the children.
[5]
On the basis of that
interpretation, she submitted that the amount of $50,000 in issue represented
the paid to the father of the children as support payments or deductible
benefit.
[6]
To support her claims, she
also stated that the father could use the monies for any purpose and that the amount
had been paid periodically, namely by way of payments.
[7]
She also provided details
about the numerous legal confrontations between them and them and the father of
the children, born of his union with their daughter. At first glance, the
explanations provided appeared to be not only very particular and sympathetic, but
also very sad for grandparents who are denied permission to see and take their
grandchildren.
[8]
For her part, the respondent
argued that the amount in issue did not at all present the essential characteristics
to conclude that it was deductible support. She also noted the title and type of
the motion to institute proceedings from which the payments in issue resulted.
[9]
She also insisted on
the content of both the consent to judgment indicating very specifically the nature
of the two payments and the judgment that followed.
[10]
The respondent also produced
the extensive
documentary evidence fully relating
and describing among other things the procedures before the Superior Court; she
drew the court’s attention to certain relevant entries in the extensive minutes
or court ledger.
[11]
In the light of the documentary evidence adduced by the respondent, there
is no doubt that the amounts in issue here were not support payments, but
rather provision for costs, also regarded as such not only in the initiating
proceedings, but also in the judgment on the motion. An amount paid as provision
for costs clearly cannot represent support payments.
[12]
However, the explanations
advanced by the appellant’s wife, corroborated, under oath, by the appellant, essentially
confirmed the true nature of the payments.
[13]
Their arguments that the
amount represented support payments are essentially based on the lure of tax advantage
resulting from the payment of support in certain situations. The appeal is
therefore dismissed from the bench.
[14]
At the time of the oral
judgment, I expressed certain sentiments regarding the gravity of an
undoubtedly very sad situation where the grandparents are denied the right to
seen and take their grandchildren sentiments I would have refrained from
expressing had I read the entire content of Exhibit I-2.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this
14th day of October 2010.
“Alain Tardif”
Translation certified true
on this 6th day
of December 2010.
Daniela Possamai,
Translator
CITATION: 2010 TCC 514
COURT FILE NO.: 2010-379(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: Normand Hamel v. Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal,
Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: August 27, 2010
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
DATE OF JUDGMENT: October 14, 2010
APPEARANCES:
|
Agent for the appellant:
|
Carmen Baron
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Simon Vincent
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent: Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada
Email this Content