Ansah v. The Queen, docket 96-4691-IT-I (Informal Procedure)

Date: 19971010

Docket: 96-4691-IT-I

BETWEEN:

BOBIE ANSAH,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

Reasons for Judgment

Lamarre Proulx, J.T.C.C.

[1]            These are appeals made by way of the informal procedure concerning the 1992 and 1993 taxation years.

[2]            The questions at issue are whether, for the year 1992, the Appellant is entitled to the tax credit for dependent children under subparagraph 118(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act") and to the tax credit in respect of his wife under paragraph 118(1)(a) of the Act, and whether, for the year 1993, he is entitled to the equivalent-to-married tax credit under paragraph 118(1)(b) of the Act with regard to his children and to deduct child care expenses under subsection 63(1) of the Act.

[3]            Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal read as follows:

3.              In computing income for the 1992 taxation year, the Appellant claimed no deduction for child care expenses. In computing taxes payable for the 1992 taxation year, the Appellant claimed non-refundable tax credits in respect of an amount of $834.00 for two dependent children (i.e.: $417.00 for each) and in respect of a married amount of $5,380.00 for a spouse.

4.              In computing income for the 1993 taxation year, the Appellant claimed a deduction for child care expenses in the amount of $6,950.00. In computing taxes payable for the 1993 taxation year, the Appellant claimed a non-refundable tax credit in respect of an equivalent to married amount of $5,380.00 for a wholly dependent child.

[4]            These tax credits and deduction were refused by the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") on the basis of the facts and reasons given in paragraph 9 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal:

9.              In so reassessing the Appellant, the Minister made the following assumptions of fact:

(a)            the individuals in respect of whom the Appellant claimed non-refundable tax credits in respect of an amount of $834.00 for two dependent children (i.e.: $417.00 each) in the 1982 taxation year were reported by the Appellant to be Mamma Yaa Ansah, date of birth October 26, 1988 and Mark Kojo Ansah, date of birth April 2, 1986;

(b)            the individual in respect of whom the Appellant claimed a non-refundable tax credit in respect of a married amount of $5,380.00 for a spouse in the 1992 taxation year was reported by the Appellant to be Akosua Fremah;

(c)            the individual in respect of whom the Appellant claimed a non-refundable tax credit in respect of an equivalent to married amount of $5,380.00 for a dependent child in the 1993 taxation year was reported by the Appellant to be Kojo Ansah, date of birth April 2, 1986;

(d)            in the 1992 taxation year, Akosua Fremah was not the dependent spouse of the Appellant and in 1992, the Appellant did not have a dependent spouse that was supported by the Appellant;

(e)            in the 1992 taxation year, Mamma Yaa Ansah and Mark Kojo Ansah were not the dependent children of, and supported by, the Appellant and in the 1992 taxation year, the Appellant did not have any dependent children that were supported by the Appellant;

(f)             the prescribed form required by subsection 63(1) of the Act for child care expense that was filed by the Appellant with his return of income for the 1993 taxation year did not contain the Social Insurance Number of the individual purported by the Appellant to have been the recipient of child care payments purported by the Appellant to have been paid by the Appellant;

(g)            in the 1993 taxation year, the amount of child care expenses paid by the Appellant in accordance with subsection 63(1) of the Act is zero;

(h)            in the 1993 taxation year, the Appellant did not support any wholly dependent children;

(i)             in the 1993 taxation year, the Appellant was not an individual described in paragraph 118(1)(b) of the Act.

[5]            With his Notice of Objection, the Appellant sent the birth certificates of his two children.

[6]            The appeals officer, upon review of the Appellant's objection, sent the Appellant the following letter:

...

You are required to submit documentation to support the above claims, such as follows:

-        Dependent birth certificate or like document;

-        Canadian Immigration Record and Visa; your marriage certificate;

-        Copy of current documentation such as social insurance registration;

-        Proof of evidence that your family resided with you in 1992 and 1993;

-        For non-resident dependant claims, proof of support payments is required;

-        Dependant's net income during 1992 and 1993;

-        Your separation agreement, divorce decree or court order;

-        Proof of control and custody of your children;

-        Receipt for child care expenses in the amount of $6,950;

...

[7]            The Appellant testified that he did not send any document other than the two birth certificates. He said that he had come to Canada as a refugee in 1988 and that he was married to Akosua Fremah in Ghana. He explained that in accordance with the tradition of his country, he did not need marriage papers. According to the birth certificates (Exhibits A-1 and A-2) that he produced in Court, from their union were born a boy, Mark Kojo, on April 2, 1986, and a girl, Mamma Yaa, on October 26, 1988, in Mamprobi, Greater Accra, Ghana.

[8]            The Appellant said that his wife and his children came to Canada in 1991 as refugee claimants. They were not accepted and they left for the United States in 1994. It was not clear whether his wife left in 1994 or in 1993 nor whether, when she left, it was with their children or not. He said that he had claimed child care expenses in 1993 because his wife was looking for work. But for that same year he had claimed the equivalent-to-married credit as if his wife were no longer in Canada.

[9]            Mr. George Aboagya, a friend of the Appellant, belonging apparently to the same church as the Appellant, said that he had seen the wife and children of the Appellant living together in the years in question.

[10]          The evidence showed that the Appellant was unable to provide any documentary evidence of the presence of his family in Canada nor was he able to provide any evidence of any support payment made for their benefit. According to him, his family came to Canada as refugee status claimants. This would have left a paper trail: pleadings, motions, orders, judgments, plane tickets, medical bills, school registration, and this list is surely not exhaustive.

[11]          I understand that some time illegal immigrants live in hiding and avoid creating any paper trail. These cases would more properly come under local welfare legislation than under the Act. Be that as it may, this is not what is being alleged by the Appellant. He said that the members of his family came to Canada openly as refugee status claimants and that he supported them while they were here. There should consequently be some documentary evidence if there is truth in these allegations.

[12]          In view of the absolute dearth of evidence, the appeals are dismissed.

"Louise Lamarre Proulx"

J.T.C.C.