Docket: 2001-1985(IT)I
|
BETWEEN:
|
WARREN L. NAGY,
|
Appellant,
|
and
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
Respondent.
|
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on April 15, 2003 at Prince Albert,
Saskatchewan
Before: The Honourable Judge B. Paris
|
|
Appearances:
|
|
For the Appellant:
|
The Appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Anne Jinnouchi
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The
appeal from the reassessments made under the Income Tax
Act for the 1998 and 1999 taxation years is dismissed in
accordance with the terms of the attached reasons for
judgment.
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 29th day of April
2003.
J.T.C.C.
Citation: 2003TCC282
|
Date: 20030429
|
Docket: 2001-1985(IT)I
|
BETWEEN:
|
WARREN L. NAGY,
|
Appellant,
|
and
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
Respondent.
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Paris, J.T.C.C.
[1] The Appellant has appealed
reassessments of income tax issued for his 1998 and 1999 taxation
years.
[2] The Minister of National Revenue
(the "Minister") disallowed the deduction by the
Appellant of the maintenance payments made by him to his
ex-spouse of $8,052 in each year.
[3] The issue in this case is whether
the payments made by the Appellant prior to September 1, 1999 met
the requirements of subsection 60.1(3) of the Income Tax
Act (the "Act") and can be deducted as
"prior payments".
[4] The facts of the case are not in
dispute. The Appellant and his ex-spouse have twin daughters born
in 1989. The Appellant and his ex-spouse separated in March 1996,
and the Appellant began making support payments of $671 a month
in respect of the children to his ex-spouse. No written
separation agreement was entered into by the Appellant and his
ex-spouse until September 1999. A copy of that agreement was
provided to the Court and marked as Exhibit A-3.
[5] In order for the payments made by
the Appellant to be deductible under paragraph 60(b) of
the Act, they would have to comply with subsection 60.1(3)
of the Act.
[6] That provision requires an
explicit recognition that the parties to the agreement intended
it to apply to prior payments, and must refer to the past
payments as having been paid and received under the written
agreement.
[7] In this case, the agreement states
that the Appellant shall continue to make support payments and
that the effective date of the agreement was March 16, 1996.
[8] However, there is no explicit
reference to prior payments, to the tax treatments of those
payments or that the payments be considered to have been paid and
received under the written agreement.
[9] Subsection 60.1(3) is explicit
with respect to these requirements. This Court held in the case
of Cuberovicv. Canada, [2000] T.C.J. No. 286 that
the parties to the agreement must indicate an intention to have
the subsection apply to past payments.
[10] In this case, there is no wording in
the agreement that would allow me to find that the parties
intended this result.
[11] For these reasons, I must dismiss the
appeal.
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 29th day of April
2003.
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE NO.:
|
2001-1985(IT)I
|
STYLE OF CAUSE:
|
Warren L. Nagy and H.M.Q.
|
PLACE OF HEARING:
|
Prince-Albert, Saskatchewan
|
DATE OF HEARING:
|
April 15, 2003
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
|
The Honourable Judge B. Paris
|
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
|
April 29, 2003
|
For the Appellant:
|
The Appellant himself
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Anne Jinnouchi
|
For the Respondent:
|
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
|