Docket: 2008-3652(IT)I
BETWEEN:
W. ADDY MAJEWSKI,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on April 15, 2009 at Toronto, Ontario
Before: The Honourable
Justice G. A. Sheridan
Appearances:
|
For the Appellant:
|
The
Appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Diana Aird
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The
appeal from the reassessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 2006
taxation year is dismissed in accordance with the attached Reasons for
Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada,
this 11th day of June, 2009.
“G. A. Sheridan”
Citation: 2009TCC317
Date: 20090611
Docket: 2008-3652(IT)I
BETWEEN:
W. ADDY MAJEWSKI,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Sheridan, J.
[1] The Appellant is appealing the reassessment by the
Minister of National Revenue of his 2006 taxation year disallowing his claim
for a medical expense credit under subsection 118.2(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The term “medical expenses” is defined in subsection 118.2(2). In 2006, the
Appellant renovated the family home where he and his wife lived with their
(then) 22‑year‑old daughter, a “dependant”[1] who suffered from “a severe and prolonged mobility
impairment” within the meaning of paragraph 118.2(2)(l.2) of Act.
The Appellant was self-represented at the hearing and was the only witness to
testify. His evidence of the nature and purpose of the various renovations and
alterations challenged by the Minister was clear and entirely credible.
[2] However, the
disposition of this appeal turns on the applicability of the monetary
limitation in the formula for the calculation of the amount that may be deducted
under subsection 118.2(1). The relevant provisions of the formula are factors
D, E and F which briefly summarized, permit the taxpayer to claim the lesser of
$10,000; and receipted medical expenses less a threshold amount linked to the
dependant’s income.
[3] By way of background, the Appellant had originally claimed a medical expense credit in
respect of the renovation costs of $47,948 and after various discussions with Canada Revenue Agency officials, was ultimately allowed a non‑refundable
tax credit of $32,816. For reasons that were not clear at the hearing, that
amount was allowed even though it was well in excess of the $10,000 limit which
the Minister now says must be imposed under subsection 118.2(1). However,
because the Minister cannot appeal his own reassessment[2], the Crown could not and did not seek to have the non-refundable
tax credit of $32,816 reduced to conform to the monetary limitation in
subsection 118.2(1). Thus, this appeal concerns the Appellant’s entitlement to
a credit in respect of the balance of $15,132.
[4] The Minister’s
position is that because the Appellant has already been allowed an amount in
excess of $10,000, subsection 118.2(1) precludes the Minister from allowing
any further amounts.
[5] On my reading of subsection 118.2(1), the Minister
correctly applied the provision to disallow the additional $15,132 at issue in
this appeal. Given this conclusion, it
serves little purpose to review the details of the Appellant’s evidence in
respect of the Minister’s alternative position that the Appellant did not meet
the qualifying criteria for a deduction under subparagraphs 118.2(2)(l.2)(i)
and (ii) of the Act:
(l.2)
[alterations to home] – for reasonable expenses relating to renovations or
alterations to a dwelling of the patient who … has a severe and prolonged
mobility impairment, to enable the patient to gain access to, or to be mobile
or functional within, the dwelling, provided that such expenses
(i)
are not of a type that would typically be expected to increase the value
of the dwelling, and
(ii)
are of a type that would not normally be incurred by persons who … do
not have a severe and prolonged mobility impairment;
[6] Accordingly, the
appeal of the reassessment of the 2006 taxation year is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 11th day of June, 2009.
“G. A. Sheridan”
CITATION: 2009TCC317
COURT FILE NO.: 2008-3652(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: W. ADDY MAJEWSKI AND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto,
Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: April 15, 2009
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The
Honourable Justice G. A. Sheridan
DATE OF JUDGMENT: June 11, 2009
APPEARANCES:
|
For the
Appellant:
|
The Appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Diana Aird
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent: John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
Email this Content