O’Connor,
J.T.C.C.:—This
matter
was
heard
in
Toronto,
Ontario,
on
November
24,
1993.
It
is
an
appeal
pursuant
to
the
informal
procedure
of
this
Court
and
concerns
the
appellant's
1989
taxation
year.
Facts
The
facts
are
uncontested.
The
appellant
resided
in
Canada
in
1989
and
during
that
year
sent
support
payments
totalling
$2,400
to
or
for
the
benefit
of
his
16-year
old
daughter,
Marie
who
throughout
that
year
resided
in
Czechoslovakia
in
an
apartment
where
the
appellant
had
previously
lived.
The
appellant
had
been
previously
divorced
and
had
not
remarried.
In
his
income
tax
return
for
1989
the
appellant
originally
claimed
this
$2,400
as
a
deduction
from
income
at
line
220.
Later
however
the
appellant
amended
his
return
to
delete
this
amount
from
line
220
and
to
claim
a
tax
credit
for
the
equivalent-to-
married
amount
at
line
305
of
his
return.
The
assessment
of
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
("Minister")
allowed
the
deduction
of
$2,400
but
rejected
the
tax
credit
claim
for
the
equivalent-to-married
amount.
The
Minister
also
claimed
interest
on
the
balance
of
taxes
outstanding
on
April
30,
1990
resulting
from
the
Minister’s
treatment
outlined
above
and
from
other
minor
matters
not
germane
to
this
appeal.
Issue
The
sole
issue
is
whether
the
appellant
is
entitled
to
claim
the
tax
credit
for
the
equivalent-to-married
amount
in
respect
to
his
daughter,
Marie.
Law
The
relevant
provision
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
"Act")
is
subsection
118(1).
Paragraph
(a)
of
this
subsection
permits
a
tax
credit
for
a
spouse
and
the
relevant
portion
of
paragraph
(b)
reads
as
follows:
118
(1)(b)
Wholly
dependent
person.—in
the
case
of
an
individual
not
entitled
to
a
deduction
by
reason
of
paragraph
(a)
who,
at
any
time
in
the
year,
(i)
is
an
unmarried
person
or
a
married
person
who
neither
supported
nor
lived
with
his
spouse
and
is
not
supported
by
his
spouse,
and
(ii)
whether
by
himself
or
jointly
with
one
or
more
other
persons,
maintains
a
self-contained
domestic
establishment
(in
which
the
individual
lives)
and
actually
supports
therein
a
person
who,
at
that
time,
is
(A)
except
in
the
case
of
a
child
of
the
individual,
resident
in
Canada,
(B)
wholly
dependent
for
support
on
the
individual,
or
the
individual
and
such
other
person
or
persons,
as
the
case
may
be,
(C)
related
to
the
individual,
and
(D)
except
in
the
case
of
a
parent
or
grandparent
of
the
individual,
either
under
18
years
of
age
or
so
dependent
by
reason
of
mental
or
physical
infirmity,
an
amount
equal
to
the
aggregate
of
.
.
.
.
A
cursory
reading
of
paragraph
(b)
might
lead
one
to
believe
that
in
the
case
of
a
child
of
a
taxpayer,
the
child
can
be
a
non-resident
of
Canada
while
the
taxpayer
is
a
resident
of
Canada
and
this
is
what
the
appellant
submits.
However
this
is
not
acceptable
because
the
original
condition
that
the
taxpayer
must
support
the
dependent
in
the
domestic
establishment
where
he
lives
has
not
been
met.
The
reason
for
the
exception
in
(A)
is
that
there
will
be
cases
where
a
taxpayer
will
be
deemed
resident
in
Canada
although
actually
residing
abroad
and
supporting
a
child
in
that
residence
abroad.
For
example
subsection
250(1)
of
the
Act
provides
in
part:
250
(1)
For
the
purposes
of
this
Act,
a
person
shall,
subject
to
subsection
(2),
be
deemed
to
have
been
resident
in
Canada
throughout
a
taxation
year
if
(a)
he
sojourned
in
Canada
in
the
year
for
a
period
of,
or
periods
the
aggregate
of
which
is,
183
days
or
more,
(b)
he
was,
at
any
time
in
the
year,
a
member
of
the
Canadian
Forces,
(c)
he
was,
at
any
time
in
the
year,
(i)
an
ambassador,
minister,
high
commissioner,
officer
or
servant
of
Canada,
or
(ii)
an
agent-general,
officer
or
servant
of
a
province,
and
he
was
resident
in
Canada
immediately
prior
to
appointment
or
employment
by
Canada
or
the
province
or
received
representation
allowances
in
respect
of
the
year,
(d)
he
performed
services,
at
any
time
in
the
year,
in
a
country
other
than
Canada
under
a
prescribed
international
development
assistance
program
of
the
Government
of
Canada
and
he
was
resident
in
Canada
at
any
time
in
the
three
months’
period
preceding
the
day
on
which
such
services
commenced,
(d.1)
he
was,
at
any
time
in
the
year,
a
member
of
the
overseas
Canadian
Forces
school
staff
who
filed
his
return
for
the
year
on
the
basis
that
he
was
a
person
resident
in
Canada
throughout
the
period
during
which
he
was
such
a
member
Reference
is
also
made
to
Interpretation
Bulletin
IT-513
dated
February
3,
1989,
which
although
not
binding,
succinctly
explains
the
point.
Paragraph
19
of
that
Bulletin
reads:
An
individual
who
is
actually
resident
in
Canada
is
ordinarily
not
entitled
to
the
married
equivalent
tax
credit
in
respect
of
a
non-resident
dependant,
including
the
child
of
the
individual,
because
the
dependant
is
ordinarily
not
supported
in
a
self-contained
domestic
establishment
in
which
both
the
individual
and
the
dependant
lived.
Where
the
other
requirements
of
118(1)(b)
are
met,
an
individual
who
resides
abroad
but
is,
by
virtue
of
subsection
250(1),
deemed
to
be
resident
in
Canada,
will
be
entitled
to
the
married
equivalent
tax
credit
only
in
respect
of
(a)
the
individual’s
child,
or
(b)
a
person
related
to
the
individual
who
is
also
deemed
to
be
resident
in
Canada
by
virtue
of
subsection
250(1).
[Emphasis
added.]
See
also
R.
v.
Scheller,
[1975]
C.T.C.
601,
75
D.T.C.
5406
(F.C.T.D.),
where
the
Federal
Court
applied
former
paragraph
109(1)(b),
which
is
essentially
the
same
as
the
1989
version
of
paragraph
118(1)(b)
and
denied
equivalent-to-married
status
because
the
daughter
of
the
Canadian
resident
taxpayer
was
not
maintained
by
the
taxpayer
in
the
domestic
establishment
where
the
taxpayer
lived.
Because
the
Minister’s
assessment
was
correct
and
there
were
outstanding
taxes
payable
on
April
30,
1990,
interest
has
been
properly
charged.
For
all
of
the
above
reasons
the
appeal
is
dismissed
without
costs.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content