Date: 19971028
Docket: 96-4165-IT-I
BETWEEN:
ROBERT RITCHIE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons for Judgment
Beaubier, J.T.C.C.
[1] On October 24, 1997 the Appellant moved to reopen judgment
in this matter on the basis that he had failed to change his
address for Court purposes and therefore did not receive notice
of the hearing in which default judgment was granted against him.
There was no opposition from the Respondent and the motion was
granted.
[2] Thereupon, on the consent of the parties, the matter
proceeded to a hearing on the issues pursuant to the Informal
Procedure. The Appellant was the only witness.
[3] The Appellant has appealed a disallowance of a claim to
deduct child care expenses for his 1994 taxation year. Paragraph
5 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal reads as follows:
5. In so reassessing the Appellant, the Minister made the
following assumptions of fact:
(a) the Appellant did not incur child care expenses (referred
to above and hereinafter as the ("Expenses") in the
1994 taxation year;
(b) the Appellant has not proven the alleged Expenses as, or
on account of, child care expenses by filing with the Minister
one or more receipts, each of which was issued by the payee and
contains, where the payee is an individual, that individual's
Social Insurance Number;
[4] The Appellant has claimed the amount of $6,000 as a
deduction in his 1994 taxation year although he failed to file
any receipts or the Social Insurance Number of the person whom he
testified cared for the children.
[5] The Appellant stated that the caregiver was a 13 year old
girl whose first name was "Catherine". He testified
that he gave the last name of the girl to Revenue Canada. He also
asked the girl for a receipt, but her parents did not permit her
to give one to him. He believes that the girl had no Social
Insurance Number on account of her age. His testimony is that
Catherine provided child care for his 10 year old and 7 year old
children from the beginning of 1994 to the end of the academic
year, 1994. In the fall of 1994 he found a registered day care
centre to care for the children. The essence of what he has
stated to the Court is that he paid a 13 year old $1,000 in cash
per month to provide after school care for his two children. He
offered no supporting evidence for this although he did say that
his bank book would show regular withdrawals of appropriate
sums.
[6] There are currently decisions of this Court going both
ways on the question as to whether or not the requirements of
receipts and a Social Insurance Number contained in section 63 of
the Income Tax Act are mandatory or directory. However, in
this case, it is not necessary for the Court to enter into a
review of that law.
[7] Without some corroborating evidence from the Appellant
such as receipts and a Social Insurance Number or the testimony
of the 13 year old girl Catherine (who would now be 16 or 17) to
the effect that she was babysitting the Appellant's children
and was paid the wages described, the Court does not accept the
Appellant's testimony by itself to the effect that he paid a
13 year old girl $6,000 in cash in 1994 for the services already
described.
[8] The principle of section 63 is that corroboration is
required. Certainly, in the circumstances of this case, the mere
testimony of the Appellant is not enough to overcome the
assumptions without corroboration.
[9] The appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 28th day of October, 1997.
"D.W. Beaubier"
J.T.C.C.
Email this Content