Beaubier
J.T.C.C.:
—
This
matter
was
heard
at
Fredericton,
New
Brunswick
on
February
14,
1996.
The
Appellant
was
the
only
witness.
The
Appellant
has
appealed
the
disallowance
of
medical
expenses
he
claimed
for
the
year
1993.
The
assumptions
of
the
Respondent
read:
11.
In
so
reassessing
the
Appellant,
the
Minister
made
the
following
assumptions
of
fact:
(a)
the
Appellant
claimed
the
medical
expenses
referred
to
in
paragraph
19
of
this
document
in
respect
of
his
wife
Ann
who
suffers
from
postencephalitis
(inflammation
of
the
brain)
syndrome,
and
for
whom
he
cares
at
home;
(b)
the
medical
expenses
disallowed
by
the
Minister
and
referred
to
in
paragraph
20
of
this
document
are
composed
of
the
following
items:
Attendant
care:
$1,850.00
Transportation
costs
for
attendants:
2,050.00
Interest
on
loans:
2,339.31
Health
care
costs:
1,24677
$7,486.08
(c)
the
amount
for
attendant
care
shown
in
subparagraph
21(b)
above
was
not
substantiated
by
the
Appellant;
the
substantiated
portion
of
the
Appellant’s
claim
for
attendant
care
in
the
amount
of
$18,972.17
has
been
allowed;
(d)
the
transportation
costs
shown
in
subparagraph
21(b)
were
claimed
by
the
Appellant
in
connection
with
allegedly
driving
attendants
to
and
from
his
home;
(e)
the
interest
on
loans
shown
in
subparagraph
21(b)
relates
allegedly
to
loans
incurred
by
the
Appellant
to
enable
him
to
care
for
his
wife;
(f)
the
health
care
costs
in
subparagraph
21(b)
were
allegedly
incurred
by
the
Appellant
in
connection
with
the
care
of
his
wife
and
include
electricity,
detergent,
sheets,
etc.;
and
(g)
the
Appellant
is
not
entitled
to
include
the
amounts
referred
to
in
subparagraphs
21(b)
and
21(c)
to
21(f)
of
this
document
in
his
medical
expenses
and
the
computation
of
the
allowable
portion
thereof.
The
Appellant’s
wife
1s,
and
at
all
material
times,
was
a
victim
of
postencephalitis
syndrome.
She
is
blind,
bedridden,
has
limited
movement
in
her
left
side,
and
no
elimination
control.
She
has
been
in
this
condition
since
1980.
She
requires
full-time
attendants.
She
is
cared
for
entirely
at
home.
The
Appellant
gave
detailed
testimony
respecting
the
amounts
in
dispute
and
itemized
in
sub-paragraph
(b)
of
the
assumptions;
he
was
not
cross-examined.
The
evidence
respecting
the
amounts
itemized
is
clear
that:
1.
Attendant
care
$1,850.
There
are
no
receipts.
2.
Transportation
cost
for
attendants
$2,050.
These
are
mileage
claims
for
mileage
incurred
by
the
Appellant
transporting
attendants
to
and
from
his
rural
home
to
care
for
his
wife.
Even
if
they
were
treated
as
attendant
care,
there
are
no
receipts
from
the
attendants
transported.
3.
Interest
on
loan,
$2339.31
These
are
loans
from
the
credit
union
for
various
over
expenditures
by
the
Appellant
on
the
total
operation
of
his
home
including
his
wife’s
care,
which
he
has
apportioned
to
the
care
of
his
wife.
4.
Health
care
costs,
$1246.77
These
are
not
prescribed
health
care
costs
although
they
relate
to
health
care
and
sanitary
care
for
his
wife.
The
Appellant’s
evidence
respecting
the
facts
in
this
case
is
accepted
in
its
entirety.
Nonetheless,
the
claims
by
the
Appellant
do
not
fulfil
the
conditions
imposed
by
the
Income
Tax
Act
respecting
receipts,
patient
transportation,
and
prescriptions.
On
the
basis
of
the
Appellant’s
unchallenged
testimony,
they
were
incurred
for
his
wife’s
care,
but
the
Appellant
is
not
entitled
to
claim
them
under
the
Income
Tax
Act.
The
Appeal
is
dismissed.
The
Court
recommends
that
there
be
a
remission
of
interest
claimed
on
the
income
tax
due
pursuant
to
the
terms
of
the
Financial
Administration
Act
due
to
the
earlier
Order
in
Council
of
remission
granted
the
Appellant
in
respect
to
1985-1988
inclusive
and
due
to
the
fact
that
there
was
no
new
assessment
thereafter
until
1993.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content