|
Docket: 2004-578(IT)I
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
DONALD KOTYLAK,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on August 23, 2004 at Whitehorse,
Yukon Territory
|
Before: The Honourable Justice L.M. Little
|
|
|
|
Appearances:
|
|
|
|
For the Appellant:
|
The Appellant himself
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Raj Grewal
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The
appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax Act
for the 2002 taxation year is dismissed, without costs, in
accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 10th day of
September 2004.
Little J.
|
Citation: 2004TCC600
|
|
Date: 20040910
|
|
Docket: 2004-578(IT)I
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
DONALD KOTYLAK,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Little J.
A. FACTS:
[1] The Appellant was employed by
Northwestern Utilities from January 28, 1992 until
August 7, 1998.
[2] The Appellant maintains that he
resigned his position at Northwestern Utilities because of safety
reasons.
[3] On September 17, 1998 the
Appellant applied for employment insurance benefits ("EI
Benefits"). However, the Appellant's claim for EI
Benefits was denied.
[4] The Appellant appealed the
Commission's decision to the Board of Referees which, in a
majority decision, dismissed the Appellant's appeal.
[5] The Appellant appealed the
decision of the Board of Referees to Umpire Guy Goulard.
[6] By a decision dated June 29, 2001
Umpire Goulard held that the majority of the Board of Referees
erred in their decision based on the facts. The Umpire found that
there was ample evidence to support a finding that the claimant
(i.e. the Appellant) had demonstrated just cause for leaving
his employment.
[7] In the 2002 taxation year the
Appellant received EI Benefits in the amount of $15,129.00
relating to the claim made for the years prior to the 2002
taxation year.
[8] When the Appellant filed his
income tax return for the 2002 taxation year he allocated the EI
Benefits that he received in the 2002 year between the 2002 year
and the amounts that were paid to him for earlier years.
[9] By Notice of Reassessment dated
April 7, 2003 the Minister of National Revenue (the
"Minister") initially assessed the Appellant's 2002
taxation year to include EI Benefits of $23,550.00 in the
computation of his income for the year and to allow $15,129.00 of
that amount to be allocated to prior years in the computation of
the Appellant's taxable income. The Notice of Assessment also
imposed an amount owing in the amount of $1,885.00 re the
repayment of social benefits related to the EI Benefits received
by the Appellant.
[10] The Appellant filed a Notice of
Objection to the Assessment.
[11] By Notice of Reassessment dated
September 9, 2003 the Minister reassessed the Appellant's
2002 taxation year. The Reassessment had the effect of
reallocating the amount of the EI Benefits that were attributable
to prior years from $15,129.00 to $14,455.00. As a result of the
Reassessment the taxes payable by the Appellant were reduced but
the social benefits repayable of $1,885.00 remained
unchanged.
B. ISSUES TO BE DECIDED:
[12] The issues are:
(a) Whether the Minister properly
included EI Benefits in computing the Appellant's income for
the 2002 taxation year;
(b) Whether the Minister properly
allocated the retroactive portion of EI Benefits received by the
Appellant in 2002 to the prior years in computing taxable income;
and
(c) Whether the Minister correctly
calculated and assessed a repayment of social benefits of
$1,885.00 in respect of the EI Benefits received by the
Appellant in 2002.
[13] In this situation the Minister included
the amount of $14,455.00 in computing the Appellant's income
for the 2002 taxation year by virtue of
paragraph 56(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act (the
"Act").
[14] The Minister also deducted the amount
of $14,455.00 in computing the Appellant's taxable income
pursuant to subsections 110.2(1), 110.2(2) and 120.31(2) of
the Act.
[15] I have concluded that the Minister
properly included EI Benefits of $23,550.00 in computing the
Appellant's income for the 2002 taxation year under
subparagraph 56(1)(a)(iv) of the Act.
[16] I have concluded that the Minister
properly allocated $14,455.00 of retroactive EI Benefits that the
Appellant received in 2002 to the 1998 and 1999 taxation years in
computing the Appellant's taxable income and taxes payable
for the 2002 taxation year, pursuant to subsections 110.2(1),
110.2(2) and 120.31(2) of the Act.
[17] I have also concluded that pursuant to
the provisions of sections 144, 145, 148, 149 and 150 of the
Employment Insurance Act the Minister correctly calculated
social benefits of $1,885.00 respecting the EI Benefits that he
received in 2002.
[18] The appeal is dismissed, without
costs.
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 10th day of
September 2004.
Little J.
Email this Content