Citation: 2007TCC608
Date: 20071024
Docket: 2006-3284(IT)I
BETWEEN:
CÉLINE PARENT,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Tardif J.
[1] This is an appeal
under the Income Tax Act (the
Act) pertaining to the 2004 taxation year. The Appellant paid fees of $1,810 to
a Naturopath which she wanted to deduct as medical expenses, which the
Respondent disallowed.
[2] The issue is
whether, for the year in question, the
Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) was justified in disallowing
the deduction of $1,810 to the Appellant for purposes of computing the tax
credit for medical expenses for the 2004 taxation year.
[3] In making and
confirming the reassessment dated November 15, 2005, in respect of the 2004
taxation year, the Minister assumed the same facts:
[TRANSLATION]
(a) the Appellant,
resident of the province of Quebec, claimed $1,810 in medical expenses for
the 2004 taxation year which she paid to a Naturopath for services rendered in
the province of Quebec;
(b) the Minister
disallowed the deduction because fees paid to a Naturopath are not eligible
medical expenses; in fact, in the province of Quebec, Naturopaths are not
regulated.
[4] The facts are not
in dispute and are very simple; basically, fees of $1,810 were paid to a
Naturopath and the Appellant would like to deduct that amount as medical
expenses.
[5] At the hearing, the
Appellant asked the Court to include in or attach to her appeal deduction
claims for the taxation years following 2004 where the amounts in issue appear
to be larger.
[6] Obviously, such a
request cannot be granted. The jurisdiction of the Tax Court of Canada
is limited to confirming, varying or vacating an assessment. Therefore, an
assessment must first be made; furthermore, the assessment must, in principle,
have been the subject of a notice of objection followed by a decision and the
date on which the decision is rendered represents the commencement of time to
appeal to the Court.
[7] The Appellant’s
appeal cannot, therefore, be granted as the Appellant has yet to receive her
assessment. As for her appeal, the Appellant basically went over the content of
her Notice of Appeal again. I reproduce the main portion of her Notice of
Appeal:
[TRANSLATION]
. . .
To the Registrar of the Court:
I wish to appeal to the Tax Court of
Canada following the decision of the Canada Revenue Agency in its
registered letter of September 18, 2006, concerning its refusal to consider the
fees in the amount of $1,810.00 paid to a Naturopath as eligible medical
expenses for reasons I deem to be unfair.
1. Naturopaths
practising in Quebec are part of a professional association recognized within
Quebec’s health system.
2. Quebec’s life and
health insurance companies accept to cover part of the fees paid to Naturopaths
who are part of Quebec’s professional association.
3. The fees paid to
Naturopaths who are part of Quebec’s professional association are recognized as
eligible medical expenses in Quebec’s income tax returns but not in tax
returns filed with the Canada Revenue Agency.
4. According to the
Canada Revenue Agency, fees paid to Naturopaths practising in Ontario are eligible
in Revenue Canada tax returns, by which the Canada Revenue Agency prejudices
Quebec taxpayers.
5. According to the
Canada Revenue Agency, if a Naturopath who practised in Ontario went to
practise in Quebec, the fees of that Naturopath (Ontario) would not be
deductible by Revenue Canada, which is unfair.
6. I produced all claims
for fees paid to a Naturopath in my 2004 income tax return filed with Revenue
Canada and Revenu Québec refers to the Canada Revenue Agency for
vouchers relating to medical expenses. Such an imbroglio is unthinkable.
7. I believe it was not
Parliament’s intent to penalize taxpayers from one province (Quebec) at the
expense of another province such as Ontario.
8. The interpretation
and application of sections 118.2(1) and 118.2(2) by the Canada Revenue Agency
is unfair and penalizes Quebec taxpayers.
. . .
[8] The accreditation
status or recognition of attributes required to be part of a particular
occupational category fall within exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
[9] Obtaining such
recognition or accreditation often requires a long and arduous process;
considering the numerous and powerful adverse interests, this often causes
lengthy delays. One thing is certain, it is clear that approaches and
conceptions evolve often following sustained and forceful claims.
[10] I believe the Court
has neither a role to play with respect to any process whatsoever leading to a
change in attitude, particularly in areas over which it has no jurisdiction,
nor expertise to draw any conclusion whatsoever.
[11] It is for the
persons and groups concerned to move their professional recognition project
forward until the provisions of the Income Tax Act in question are
amended.
[12] In other words, the
Tax Court of Canada has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether or not a
particular discipline or practice should be part of a particular occupational
category.
[13] Not only can the Tax
Court of Canada not interfere in questions of the recognition or accreditation
of professionals who are devoted to finding solutions to the many health
problems of today, but it must also be careful not to make decisions that would
constitute indirect interference and be adopted by a particular lobby very
quickly.
[14] In the case at bar,
even though the Appellant’s observations are very interesting and her
assessments as to her wellness are very positive following the treatment
received or the recommendations made, I cannot allow her appeal.
[15] In fact, the
Appellant and her representative submitted that the Naturopath, to whom the
fees she is trying to deduct were paid, was qualified and competent. She stated
that, owing to the Naturopath’s care, her health greatly improved. I cannot,
based simply on such an assertion, conclude that the professional care in
question is deductible under the Income Tax Act.
[16] Moreover, the
argument that Naturopaths enjoy a tacit recognition considering the absence of
criminal proceedings respecting the illegal practice of medicine by the Collège
des médecins does not in any way confer on the Appellant the right to deduct
the fees in question.
[17] The Appellant
invested a great deal of energy in preparing her case. Her arguments are no
doubt seductive, but they are not being argued before the appropriate body.
[18] I must reiterate the
observations made at the hearing that the Court has no jurisdiction to
legislate as the only jurisdiction it has is to verify whether the assessment
was correctly made under the provisions of the Act. In that regard, the
assessment for the period in issue was in every respect consistent with the
Act.
[19] The Appellant
invested many hours in preparing her case. She also produced voluminous and
very interesting documentary evidence in support of her case.
[20] Regrettably,
however, the arguments submitted, though reasonable and relevant in terms of
the objectives of the case, are not admissible to dispose of the appeal.
[21] In other words, I
must essentially decide the correctness of the assessment based on the existing
law. I cannot assume the role of the legislator, although I can comment on
certain shortcomings, particularly concerning the lack of harmonization between
the statutes and regulations in force in the various Canadian provinces.
[22] With respect to the
merits of the case, the decision I rendered on October 5, 2005,
in Denis Roy v. The Queen, docket 2004-1417(IT)I, is still applicable.
[23] For all these
reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 24th day of
October 2007.
“Alain Tardif”
Translation certified true
on this 26th day of November 2007.
Daniela Possamai,
Translator
Email this Content