A-985-96
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 1997.
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DENAULT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LÉTOURNEAU
BETWEEN:
ANDRÉ CARDIN,
Applicant,
AND:
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
J U D G M E N T
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
Pierre Denault
J.A.
Certified true translation
Christiane Delon
Docket: A-985-96
CORAM: DENAULT J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
BETWEEN:
ANDRÉ CARDIN,
Applicant,
AND
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
Hearing held at Montréal on Friday, October 31, 1997
Judgment delivered at Montréal on Friday, October 31, 1997
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Docket: A-985-96
CORAM: DENAULT J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
BETWEEN:
ANDRÉ CARDIN,
Applicant,
AND
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal
on Friday, October 31, 1997)
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1] We are satisfied that Judge St-Onge of the Tax Court of Canada did not err in applying the principles for determining the applicant"s gross, net and taxable income in view of the deductions to which he was entitled as a result of what is commonly known as the taxable capital gains exemption granted by the Income Tax Act .
[2] As regards that taxable capital gains exemption, subsection 110.6(3) of the Act provides that the exempt amount may be "deducted" from the taxpayer"s net income to determine the taxpayer"s taxable income. Moreover, section 2 of the Act defines "taxable income" as the taxpayer"s income for the year . . . minus the deductions permitted by Division C of the Act , which contains the lifetime capital gains exemption. It is therefore clear that Parliament viewed the taxable capital gains exemption as a deduction, and it is this legal standard that the Department applied in dealing with the applicant"s file.
[3] There is no doubt that, as shown by the applicant, this approach chosen by Parliament has an impact on a retired person who has a capital gain and whose income exceeds $53,215 as a result, because such a person must repay a portion of his or her old age security benefits. However, Canadian taxpayers have been clearly notified of that impact by the Department of National Revenue before they decide to have a taxable capital gain and claim the deduction.
[4] Finally, we cannot accept the applicant"s argument that the legislation discriminates on the basis of age in this area. The negative impact noted by the applicant is related to a taxpayer"s income rather than his or her age.1
[5] Accordingly, the application for judicial review should be dismissed.
Gilles Létourneau
J.A.
Certified true translation
Christiane Delon
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| STYLE OF CAUSE: ANDRÉ CARDIN, |
Applicant,
| MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, |
Respondent.
| PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec |
| DATE OF HEARING: October 31, 1997 |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DENAULT, MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY AND MR. JUSTICE LÉTOURNEAU)
| DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Létourneau |
Dated: October 31, 1997
APPEARANCES:
André Cardin representing himself
Sylvie Gadoury for the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
André Cardin representing himself
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario for the Respondent
__________________
1 Swantje v. Canada, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 73Lancey v. The Queen, 94 D.T.C. 6075 (F.C.A.)
Email this Content