[1] I have not been convinced that the Tax Court of Canada made an error in concluding that the appellant was not entitled to a Goods and Services Tax (GST) credit claimed for his wife because he lived separated from her. Indeed, the appellant, who is self-represented, admitted throughout that he was not living with his wife.

[2] Subsection 122.5(1) of the Income Tax Act, S.R. 1985 (Act), defines a "qualified relation" of an individual for a taxation year as the person who, at the end of the year, is the individual's cohabiting spouse. Section 122.6 of the Act defines, in essence, the "cohabiting spouse" of an individual, at any time, the person who, at that time, is the individual's spouse and who is not, at that time, living separate and apart from the individual.

[3] The appellant submits that the law is unfair and inequitable and that the Tax Court of Canada should have struck it down. The Tax Court judge was bound to apply the law as enacted by Parliament. So are we.

[4] I would dismiss the appeal without costs in the particular circumstances of this case.

"Gilles Létourneau"

J.A.

"I agree

Robert Décary J.A."

"I agree

J.D.Denis Pelletier J.A."

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: A-398-03

(APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE TAX COURT OF CANADA, DATED JUNE 2, 2003, NO. 2002-3795(IT)I

STYLE OF CAUSE: KENNETH W. RANDOM v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ET AL.

PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING: February 14, 2005

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY: DÉCARY J.A.

PELLETIER J.A.

DATED: February 22, 2005

APPEARANCES:

Kenneth W. Random

FOR HIMSELF

Me Sophie-Lyne Lefebvre

FOR THE RESPONDENTS

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Mascouche, Quebec

FOR HIMSELF

JOHN H. SIMS

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Montreal, Quebec

FOR THE RESPONDENTS

You are here

Random v. Canada, 2005 FCA 75

Citations2005 FCA 75

Case tabs

Citations
2005 FCA 75