Docket: 2007-235(IT)I
BETWEEN:
RACHED BADIA,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on June 26, 2007, at Montréal, Quebec
Before: The Honourable
Justice Paul Bédard
Appearances:
|
Counsel for the Appellant:
|
Jean-Pierre Gagné
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Nadia Golmier, articling student
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the reassessments made under
the Income Tax Act for the 2003 and 2004 taxation years is dismissed in
accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 11th day of
October 2007.
"Paul Bédard"
Translation certified true
on this 1st day of November 2007.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Citation: 2007TCC570
Date: 20071011
Docket: 2007-235(IT)I
BETWEEN:
RACHED BADIA,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Bédard J.
[1] This is an appeal
from child tax benefit redeterminations concerning the 2003 and 2004 base
years.
[2] The Appellant is
the mother of Aliaa, born January 5, 1993, and Ismail, born September 19, 1996. She separated
from her spouse in April 2003 and left the family residence on May 25, 2005. Following the
separation, the couple's children remained in the custody of the father, Salah
El Khattas. The Appellant began to receive child tax benefits in October 2000
and continued to receive them even after leaving the family residence.
[3] The issue in the
instant case is whether the Minister of National Revenue
("the Minister") correctly revised the child tax benefit amount
by determining that the overpayments amounted to $3,052.07 for the period from
July 2004 to June 2005 for the 2003 base year, and $946.67 for the
period consisting of July and August 2005 for the 2004 base year.
[4] The Appellant's Notice of Appeal
reads as follows:
Rached Badia
[Address and telephone number
omitted.]
Montréal, November 17, 2006
Subject: Objection to the Canada Revenue
Agency's
Notification of Confirmation in respect
of Child Tax Benefits
(Base Years: 2003 and 2004)
Dear Madam or Sir:
Further to the Notification of Confirmation dated November 3, 2006,
which I received from the Tax Centre In Shawinigan‑Sud, QC G9N 7S6, I
hereby lodge an appeal with the Tax Court of Canada, under the informal
procedure, in order to maintain my objection to the notice dated
May 19, 2006, in which the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency claimed
an amount from me that was used by my ex-spouse, because all the amounts were
deposited into a joint account, and it was my ex‑husband who used those
amounts at all times, and when I left the family residence, nothing changed
because the children remain in his custody. In fact, that is why he never
notified the Customs Agency that I had left. He is the one who looks after the
children, because he always transferred his amounts from the joint account to
his personal account using the Internet. However, I was the person who notified
the Customs Agency of the change of situation.
In this regard, I have a document from the bank that
proves that the last deposit of $3,328.12 on December 13, 2005, was deposited into the account from
which I removed my signature and name in October 2005, and which became a
personal account of his.
With respect to the filing fee, I am currently
receiving social solidarity benefits, and this will cause me financial
hardship, so I hope that this fee will be repaid to me.
I look forward to hearing from you with respect to
this matter.
Best regards,
[Signature]
[5] In the case at bar,
the Appellant does not dispute the fact that she was not the eligible
individual within the meaning of section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act
("the Act"), nor does she dispute the fact that she did not send the
Minister a notice that she ceased to be eligible, which was required by
subsection 122.62(4) of the Act. Rather, the Appellant submits that the benefit
payments, with the exception of one payment of $3,328.12, were always deposited
into a bank account ("the joint account") which she held
jointly with Mr. Khattas, who transferred an amount equal to these
payments into his personal account. With respect to the amount of $3,328.12
which the Appellant says is a child tax benefit payment, she claims that, on
December 13, 2005, it was deposited into the joint account, which had
become Mr. Khattas's personal account on October 4, 2005. In this regard, the
Appellant adduced documentary evidence (Exhibit A‑1) which shows
that the joint account became Mr. Khattas's personal account on
October 4, 2005, and that the amount of $3,300 was transferred into
that bank account. In short, the Appellant submits that the child tax
benefit payments were paid to Mr. Khattas, not to her, because all those
payments were subsequently transferred into his personal bank account and he
was therefore the only person who benefitted from them.
[6] The evidence in the
instant case does not enable us to determine whether the child tax benefit
payments were made by cheque issued to the Appellant or whether they were in
the form of deposits.
[7] If the child tax
benefit payments were made by cheques payable to the Appellant and were then
deposited into the joint account, or the joint account that became
Mr. Khattas's personal account on October 4, 2005, it seems
clear to me that the payments cannot be characterized as payments made to Mr.
Khattas. In my opinion, the fact that Mr. Khattas supposedly took
possession of the funds paid as child tax benefits does not cause him to become
the beneficiary of the child tax benefits.
[8] My finding would be
the same even if the Minister directly deposited the child tax benefits into
the joint account, or the account that became Mr. Khattas's personal
account on October 4, 2005. Indeed, such a deposit
could only have been made if the Appellant had submitted a direct deposit
request to the Minister. It is important for the Appellant to understand that a
direct deposit request is a kind of direction to pay funds, and thus, the
benefits deposited directly into the joint account, or the account that became
Mr. Khattas's personal account on October 4, 2005, constituted
payments to the Appellant in any event.
[9] For these reasons,
I am of the opinion that the child tax benefit payments were made to the
Appellant, and that they cannot, in any way, be characterized as payments
made to Mr. Khattas, regardless of the version of the facts that is
accepted.
[10] The appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 11th day of October 2007.
"Paul Bédard"
Translation
certified true
on this 1st day of
November 2007.
Brian McCordick,
Translator
Email this Content