1999-2151(IT)I
BETWEEN:
CECILIA KYEI-BOATENG,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on June 26, 2000 at Toronto, Ontario
by
the Honourable Judge Terrence P. O'Connor
Appearances
Agent for the
Appellant:
Raymond Frempong
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Sherry Darvish
JUDGMENT
The
appeal from the reassessment made under the Income Tax Act
for the 1997 taxation year is dismissed in accordance with the
attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 14th day of July, 2000.
J.T.C.C.
Date: 20000714
Docket: 1999-2151(IT)I
BETWEEN:
CECILIA KYEI-BOATENG,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
O'Connor, J.T.C.C.
ISSUE:
[1] The issue in this appeal is
whether in the 1997 year the Appellant was entitled to the
equivalent-to-married credit of $914.60 ($5380 x 17%) in
computing the total of her non-refundable tax credits. This
in turn will be determined by whether in the 1997 year one Joseph
Oduro is to be considered as the Appellant's spouse.
The Respondent contends that in that year, the Appellant lived in
a common-law relationship with Joseph Oduro and consequently he
was her spouse within the meaning of sub-section 252(4) of the
Income Tax Act ("Act").
FACTS:
[2] The Appellant testified that in
1997 she was single. That she had previously been married
to one John Boateng but she divorced. The Appellant had two
children, one Millicent, whose father was the said John
Appiah-Korang and one Devin Oduro, born October 31, 1994 who, the
Appellant confirms, was the son of the said Joseph Oduro.
[3] The Appellant further testified
that Joseph Oduro, to her knowledge, moved to Brampton in 1996
and remained in Brampton in 1997 and therefore did not live with
her in a common-law relationship.
[4] Testimony was also given by one
Cesare Chiarotto, an Appeals Officer with Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency. He filed an Affidavit (R-2) which explains
the Agency's practice of transferring taxation information to
a computerized data base system upon receipt of a tax
return. This Affidavit includes several exhibits which Mr.
Chiarotto reviewed in detail. Exhibit "D" relates
to information pertaining to Joseph Appiah-Koffi Oduro
("Joseph") indicates that his address in 1997 was 120
Acorn Place, Apt. 309, that his marital status was common-law and
that his spouse's name was "Ceci". That
Exhibit also establishes that the social insurance number of
Joseph was 506 731 199. Exhibit "A", which
relates to the Appellant indicates her matrimonial status in 1997
as being common-law and indicates that the spouse's name was
John but the social insurance number is the same as that for
Joseph, namely, 506 731 199. Further, Exhibit "B"
also relating to the Appellant, indicates that in 1997 she was
common-law. Exhibit "C" indicates a change of
address to Apt. 406 at 120 Acorn Place in May of
1998. Also, with respect to 1998, the marital status of the
Appellant indicated in Exhibit "C" is still common-law
and the spouse's name is still indicated as being John from
whom the Appellant said she was divorced as early as 1991.
Exhibit "E" to the Affidavit indicates that the address
of Joseph Oduro became 56 Dansbury Crescent, Brampton, Ontario on
October 9, 1998. Exhibit R-4, which is similar in form to
the Affidavit Exhibits, indicates that the Appellant moved to
Apt. 309 at 120 Acorn Place on April 15, 1996. Exhibit R-1
being a copy of the T-1 general return for 1997 of the Appellant
crosses out the indication of her being single at the end of
December, 1997 and completes the box indicating married as of
that date.
[5] In my opinion there are too many
inconsistencies in the testimony of the Appellant when weighed
against the apparent contradictory facts disclosed in the
Affidavit and the Exhibits mentioned above. Morever, no
substantiating testimony was given and no documents showing dates
of marriage or divorce or rental agreements with respect to the
apartments were supplied.
[6] Consequently on a balance of
probabilities, I am of the view that during 1997 the Appellant
co-habited with Mr. Joseph Oduro in a conjugal relationship and
that the latter was therefore a spouse within the meaning of
subsection 252(4) of the Act. Consequently in 1997
she was not entitled to the equivalent to married credit.
[7] As a result the appeal is
dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, this 14th day of July, 2000.
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE
NO.:
1999-2151(IT)I
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
Cecilia Kyei-Boateng v. Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF
HEARING:
Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF
HEARING:
June 26, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BY:
The Honourable T. P. O'Connor
DATE OF
JUDGMENT:
July 14, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Agent for the
Appellant:
Raymond Frempong
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Sherry Darvish
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
Email this Content