97-3303(IT)I
BETWEEN:
EVELYN FOSUAH OSEI,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard together with the appeal of Kwabena
Osei (97-3737(IT)I) on November 24, 1998 at Toronto, Ontario,
by
the Honourable Judge J.A. Brulé
Appearances
Agent for the
Appellant:
R. Frampong
For the
Respondent:
P. Thorning (articling student)
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessments made under the Income Tax
Act for the 1993, 1994 and 1995 taxation years is allowed and
the assessments are referred back to the Minister of National
Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment in accordance with
the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 21st day of January 1999.
J.T.C.C.
97-3737(IT)I
BETWEEN:
KWABENA OSEI,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard together with the appeal of Evelyn
Fosuah Osei (97-3303(IT)I) on November 24, 1998 at Toronto,
Ontario, by
the Honourable Judge J.A. Brulé
Appearances
Agent for the
Appellant:
R. Frampong
For the
Respondent:
P. Thorning (articling student)
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessments made under the Income Tax
Act for the 1993 and 1994 taxation years is allowed and the
assessments are referred back to the Minister of National Revenue
for reconsideration and reassessment in accordance with the
attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 21st day of January 1999.
J.T.C.C.
Date: 19990121
Docket: 97-3303(IT)I
BETWEEN:
EVELYN FOSUAH OSEI,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent,
AND
97-3737(IT)I
KWABENA OSEI,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Brulé, J.T.C.C.
[1] The two appellants appeal their
assessments as follows:
- Evelyn F. Osei
(E.O.) for the 1993, 1994 and 1995 taxation years. The case was
heard in Toronto, Ontario, on November 24, 1998.
- Kwabena Osei
(K.O.) for the 1993 and 1994 taxation years.
Each is claiming the equivalent to spouse credit for the
taxation years involved.
Facts
[2] During the trial, which was held
concurrently for both appellants, a translator of the Akan
language was present and assisted the Court when necessary.
[3] The appellants were apparently
married for the years in question, but they claimed to have been
living separate and apart. Each maintained a residence and on the
advice of a third party they attempted a reconciliation on more
than one occasion. Each time this occurred such lasted only about
two days. At no time did K.O. pay any money towards the support
of his spouse.
[4] The appellant K.O. also appealed
the denial of Ontario Tax Credits. The respondent submitted that
the Tax Court did not have jurisdiction to consider this point
and so the matter was not pursued.
Issue
[5] The main issue is whether or not
the appellants were living together during the periods in
question.
Analysis
[6] During argument, counsel for the
respondent told the Court that if the appellants were not living
together during the periods in question then the appeals should
be allowed. Naturally, counsel took the opposite view that the
appellants were indeed living together during the years in
question.
[7] The Court took the opposite view.
The evidence given by both appellants, which was not rebutted,
showed that the brief trial reconciliations did not constitute a
couple living together. Their eligibility for their respective
appeal depended on their living apart which in the Court's
opinion they were.
[8] This coupled with the parole
argument by counsel for the respondent is then sufficient for the
Court to come to the conclusion that the appellants were living
apart during the years in question.
[9] Accordingly, the appeals are
allowed other than the Ontario Tax Credit and the matters are
hereby to be returned to the Minister of National Revenue for
reconsideration and reassessment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 21st day of January 1999.
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE
NO.:
97-3303(IT)I
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
Evelyn F. Osei and H.M.Q.
PLACE OF
HEARING:
Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF
HEARING:
November 24, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable
Judge J.A. Brulé
DATE OF
JUDGMENT:
January 21, 1999
APPEARANCES:
For the
Appellant:
R. Frampong (Agent)
For the
Respondent:
P. Thorning (articling student)
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
COURT FILE
NO.:
97-3737(IT)I
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
Kwabena Osei and H.M.Q.
PLACE OF
HEARING:
Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF
HEARING:
November 24, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable
Judge J.A. Brulé
DATE OF
JUDGMENT:
January 21, 1999
APPEARANCES:
For the
Appellant:
R. Frampong (Agent)
For the
Respondent:
P. Thorning (articling student)
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada