Tremblay,
T.C.C.J.:
This
appeal
was
heard
on
July
8,
1992
at
Québec
City,
Québec.
1.
Point
in
issue
The
issue
is
whether
the
appellant
is
entitled
to
claim
a
refund
of
the
income
tax
deducted
by
the
Québec
Ministère
du
Revenu
in
computing
her
income
tax
for
the
1986
taxation
year.
The
appellant,
who
was
a
teacher
with
the
Canadian
Armed
Forces
in
Germany
during
1986,
argued
that
she
was
not
a
resident
of
Québec
and
that
she
did
not
have
to
pay
income
tax.
The
respondent
argued
that
the
Court
does
not
have
jurisdiction
to
order
such
a
refund.
2.
Burden
of
proof
2.01
The
appellant
has
the
burden
of
establishing
that
the
respondent's
assessment
is
incorrect.
This
burden
of
proof
results
from
several
judicial
decisions,
including
the
judgment
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
in
Johnston
v.
M.N.R.,
[1948]
S.C.R.
486,
[1948]
C.T.C.
195,
3
D.T.C.
1182.
2.02
In
that
judgment,
the
Court
held
that
the
facts
assumed
by
the
respondent
in
support
of
the
assessment
or
reassessment
are
also
presumed
to
be
correct
until
proved
otherwise.
In
the
present
case,
the
facts
assumed
by
the
respondent
are
described
in
subparagraphs
(a)
to
(d)
of
paragraph
10
of
the
respondent's
reply
to
the
notice
of
appeal.
That
paragraph
reads
as
follows:
10.
In
assessing
the
appellant
as
he
did
for
the
1986
taxation
year,
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
relied
on
the
following
facts,
inter
alia
[admitted
or
denied
by
the
appellant
at
the
beginning
of
the
enquiry]:
(a)
the
appellant
is
a
teacher;
[admitted]
(b)
during
the
1986
taxation
year,
the
appellant
taught
at
a
Canadian
Armed
Forces
school
outside
Canada;
[admitted]
(c)
during
that
year,
the
appellant
was
paid
by
a
school
board
established
in
the
province
of
Québec,
the
Commission
scolaire
Valin;
[admitted]
(d)
when
the
school
board
paid
the
appellant,
it
deducted
certain
amounts
for
Québec
provincial
income
tax.
[admitted]
[Translation.]
3.
Facts
3.01
The
appellant
had
been
a
teacher
for
the
Commission
scolaire
Mont-Valin,
in
Chicoutimi,
Québec,
for
several
years
when
she,
like
ail
the
other
teachers,
received
advertising
material
from
the
Department
of
National
Defence
(D.N.D.)
inviting
them
to
take
advantage
of
the
opportunity
to
teach
the
children
of
soldiers
in
the
Canadian
Armed
Forces
in
Germany.
3.02
After
making
an
initial
application
for
employment
in
the
fall
of
1981
which
was
refused,
she
made
a
second
in
1982
which
was
accepted.
3.03
After
signing
a
tripartite
agreement
with
D.N.D.
and
the
Commission
scolaire
Mont-Valin,
a
true
copy
of
which
was
introduced
as
Exhibit
A-1,
she
left
for
Germany
on
July
17,
1983.
3.04
According
to
the
appellant,
this
departure
was
a
first
step
toward
starting
her
life
off
on
a
new
foot.
She
had
married
in
1955,
divorced
in
1973,
and
was
the
mother
of
three
children
and
had
done
her
best
to
help
them.
In
1983
they
were
28,
24
and
16
years
old,
and
the
last
was
entering
military
school.
While
she
was
living
in
Chicoutimi
she
had
participated
in
organizing
and
running
the
Cadet
Corps.
3.05
The
appellant
testified
that
before
she
left
she
sold
her
house
and
all
her
property;
she
had
nothing
left
but
what
was
in
her
suitcase.
She
had
no
ties
other
than
the
bank
account
where
her
cheque
would
be
deposited
by
the
school
board.
The
address
she
gave
on
boulevard
Saguenay
in
Chicoutimi
was
her
daughter's.
The
appellant
stated
that
she
left
Canada
to
go
and
live
elsewhere.
3.06
The
appellant
noted
that
in
Germany
her
employer
was
D.N.D.,
through
the
principal
of
the
school,
and
no
longer
the
Commission
scolaire
Mont-
Valin.
In
this
connection,
she
noted
the
following
passages
of
the
contract,
Exhibit
A-1:
A.
the
Minister
has
established
overseas
schools,
each
of
which
is
hereinafter
referred
to
as
a
"school",
for
the
education
of
children
of
members
of
the
Canadian
Forces
and
accompanying
civilians
stationed
at
defence
establishments
outside
Canada;
B.
the
Minister
has
requested
the
board
and
the
board
has
agreed
to
make
the
Teacher
available
to
the
Minister
for
assignment
to
the
schools;
2.
(a)
The
board
hereby
makes
the
teacher
available
to
the
Minister
for
assignment
to
such
school
or
schools
as
the
Minister
sees
fit
for
a
period
of
one
contract
year.
.
..
(b)
It
is
a
condition
precedent
to
such
assignment
that
the
teacher
shall
satisfy
the
Minister:
(1)
as
to
his
medical
fitness
for
the
assignment,
by
undergoing
a
medical
examination
as
prescribed
in
sub-clause
6a.(1);
and
(2)
as
to
the
adequacy
of
his
insurance
for
purposes
of
subclause
6a.(5),
by
evidence
thereof
acceptable
to
the
Minister.
4.
The
Minister
shall
reimburse
the
board
for
moneys
actually
and
properly
paid
or
disbursed
by
the
board
pursuant
to
clause
3
in
such
manner
and
at
such
time
or
times
as
may
be
agreed
between
the
board
and
the
Minister.
6.
(a)
The
teacher
hereby
engages
with
the
Minister
and
undertakes
that
from
and
after
the
date
of
execution
of
this
agreement
and
until
termination
thereof
he
will:
(3)
conduct
himself
in
a
manner
appropriate
to
his
status
as
a
member
of
a
civilian
component
of
the
Canadian
Forces
outside
Canada
and
with
his
treatment
as
an
officer
under
this
agreement;
7.
(a)
The
Minister
hereby
undertakes
and
the
teacher
agrees
that
from
and
after
the
teacher's
arrival
at
the
location
of
the
school
in
Europe
to
which
he
is
assigned
until
termination
of
this
agreement
the
teacher
shall:
(2)
be
required
to
pay
the
applicable
mess
dues
and
be
accorded
the
use
of
officers’
messes
overseas
and
the
privileges
thereto
appertaining.
3.07
The
appellant's
contract
has
been
renewed
automatically
each
year
to
date.
She
is
at
present
the
principal
of
a
school.
She
is
not
paid
any
more
than
the
salary
established
for
a
teacher
with
the
commission
scolaire
Mont-Valin,
based
on
her
years
of
experience.
When
an
increase
for
teachers
takes
effect
in
Québec,
she
receives
the
increase.
The
same
was
true
when
teachers’
salaries
were
reduced.
3.08
During
the
fall
of
1983,
in
addition
to
her
teaching,
she
founded
a
francophone
cadet
corps
in
Germany,
which
she
led
for
three
years.
She
was
not
paid
any
additional
salary.
In
1986,
D.N.D.
honoured
her
with
the
rank
of
lieutenant.
This
rank
does
not
provide
her
with
any
additional
income.
3.09
In
the
fall
of
1983
the
teachers
were
called
to
a
meeting.
A
document
composed
of
23
sections
(Exhibit
A-2)
which
had
been
issued
by
Revenue
Canada
Taxation
headquarters
was
distributed
to
them.
That
document
explained,
inter
alia,
that
for
purposes
of
their
income
tax
returns
they
were
"deemed
residents
of
Canada"
but
not
deemed
residents
of
a
province
(section
6).
In
addition,
they
were
to
enter
"other"
on
the
form
in
the
place
for
identifying
the
province
(section
7).
3.10
Paragraphs
4,
9,
10
and
11
of
Exhibit
A-2
also
read
as
follows:
4.
Certain
people,
as
mentioned
in
item
9
below,
may
also
be
deemed
to
have
been
resident
in
the
Province
of
Québec
throughout
the
year.
Those
people
should
use
the
general
tax
package
for
Residents
of
Québec,”
but
may
use
the
special
return
package
for
residents
of
Québec
if
one
was
mailed
to
them,
and
if
they
meet
the
requirements
outlined
on
the
front
cover
of
the
Special
Guide
enclosed
in
the
package.
[Emphasis
added.]
9.
Individuals
who
were
members
of
the
overseas
Canadian
Forces
school
staff
at
any
time
in
the
year
are
deemed
to
have
been
residents
of
Canada
if
they
have
filed
their
return
for
the
year
on
the
basis
that
they
were
residents
of
Canada.
Although
they
are
"deemed
residents”
of
Canada
they
may
be
subject
to
Québec
provincial
tax
if
they
lived
in
the
Province
of
Québec
prior
to
serving
abroad
and
intend
to
return
to
Canada.
[Emphasis
added.]
10.
If
they
are
subject
to
Québec
provincial
tax
they
should
enter"
Québec"
on
the
line
of
page
1
of
the
return
headed
"Your
Province
or
Territory
of
Residence
on
December
31,
1986,
was.”
Otherwise,
they
should
enter
“
Other.”
They
SHOULD
NOT
enter
a
date
in
the"
Date
of
Entry
or
Departure”
area
on
page
1
of
the
return,
as
such
an
entry
could
cause
the
personal
exemptions
to
be
prorated
rather
than
allowed
in
full.
11.
Members
who
are
also
subject
to
Québec
provincial
tax
must
report
their
world
income,
and
are
entitled
to
all
exemptions,
deductions
and
credits.
They
are
subject
to
federal
tax
and,
as
they
are
also
subject
to
Québec
provincial
tax
they
are
not
required
to
include
the
surtax
of
47
per
cent
of
the
basic
federal
tax
when
calculating
federal
tax
payable.
However,
they
may
claim
the
refundable
Québec
abatement
on
their
federal
income
tax
return.
3.11
Exhibit
A-2
is
dated
February
1987.
According
to
the
appellant,
it
is
similar
to
the
document
they
were
given
in
1983.
The
Court
doubts
this.
3.12
For
the
1983,
1984
and
1985
taxation
years,
the
appellant
filed
federal
income
tax
returns
in
which
she
identified
herself
as
a
resident
of
Canada”
and
"other".
She
was
refunded
the
income
tax
overpayments
deducted
from
her
salary,
even
the
Québec
tax.
She
did
not
file
Québec
income
tax
returns.
3.13
For
the
year
in
issue,
1986,
the
appellant
filed
her
federal
return
on
April
15,
1987.
In
the
item
"type
of
work"
she
stated
that
she
was
a
teacher
and
entered
"Commission
scolaire
Valin”
as
"present
employer".
She
enclosed
the
following
attachment
to
her
return,
entitled
Decision
to
file
an
income
tax
return":
I
am
a
member
of
the
Canadian
Forces
assigned
to
the
Overseas
Schools
and
I
elect
to
submit
an
income
tax
return
for
1986
as
a
deemed
resident
of
Canada,
in
accordance
with
section
250
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
My
federal
income
tax
return
was
prepared
on
this
basis.
[Translation]
3.14
The
T4
and
TP4
forms
show
gross
income
of
$40,955.40,
a
Québec
Pension
Plan
contribution
of
$419.40,
unemployment
insurance
premiums
of
$604.80,
a
registered
retirement
savings
plan
contribution
of
$2,934.66,
a
deduction
for
Québec
income
tax
of
$6,785.72,
a
deduction
for
federal
income
tax
of
$5,507.71
and
union
dues
of
$516.
3.15
The
appellant
reported
net
federal
tax
payable
of
$9,317
and
total
taxes
deducted
of
$12,293.43
(6,785.72
+
5,507.71),
and
claimed
a
refund
of
$2,976.43.
3.16
On
June
19,
1987,
the
respondent
issued
an
assessment
establishing
the
appellant's
taxable
income
at
$31,236
and
net
total
federal
tax
payable
at
$6,487.20.
The
respondent
subtracted
the
$5,507.71
in
federal
income
tax
deducted
at
source
and
a
Québec
abatement
of
$1,051.53,
leaving
a
balance
payable
of
$72.04.
The
following
"explanation
of
changes"
was
attached
to
the
assessment:
We
have
changed
your
deduction
for”
annual
union,
professional
or
like
dues"
to
$516,
the
deductible
amount
for
the
1986
taxation
year.
We
have
corrected
an
error
made
in
calculating
federal
income
tax
payable
on
page
4
of
your
return.
Please
see
the
"summary
of
changes"
area
for
the
revised
amount.
We
have
changed
your
"total
income
tax
deducted
(from
all
information
slips)"
to
$5,507.71
in
order
to
remove
the
income
tax
withheld
by
Québec.
You
will
receive
a
credit
for
this
amount
when
your
Québec
income
tax
return
is
processed.
We
have
established
your"
refundable
Québec
abatement”
at
$1,051.53
and
this
amount
will
reduce
your
total
payable.
[Translation]
3.17
A
notice
of
objection
having
been
filed,
a
notice
of
reassessment
was
issued
on
July
18,
1989,
establishing
the
appellant's
taxable
income
at
$31,236
and
federal
income
tax
at
$6,487.
The
following
note
appears
on
the
T7W-C
form:
Reassessment
made
under
sections
120
and
250(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
Income
tax
deducted
for
and
on
behalf
of
Revenu
Québec
is
not
applicable
against
federal
income
tax
payable
but
must
be
claimed
directly
from
Revenu
Québec.
[Translation]
3.18
The
appellant
contended,
in
her
testimony,
that
once
her
period
of
employment
with
D.N.D.
is
completed
she
is
free
to
go
and
live
in
France
or
elsewhere,
but
she
admitted
that
if
she
returns
to
live
in
Québec
the
Commission
scolaire
Mont-Valin
is
obliged
to
provide
her
with
employment,
taking
into
account
her
years
of
experience
in
both
Québec
and
Germany.
She
further
admitted
that
if
she
reaches
the
age
of
retirement
she
will
draw
a
pension
based
on
the
deductions
from
each
of
her
pay
cheques
and
her
pension
will
be
paid
by
the
government
of
Québec.
4.
Act
—
Case
law
—
Analysis
4.01
Act
The
main
legislative
provisions
to
which
the
Court
was
referred
are
subsections
120(1),
154(1)
and
(4)
and
250(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
(Canada),
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
"Act")
and
section
8
of
the
Taxation
Act
of
Québec.
These
provisions
read
as
follows:
4.01(a)
Income
Tax
Act
(Canada)
120.
Income
not
earned
in
a
province
(1)
There
shall
be
added
to
the
tax
otherwise
payable
under
this
Part
by
an
individual
for
a
taxation
year
an
amount
that
bears
the
same
relation
to
47
per
cent
of
the
tax
otherwise
payable
under
this
Part
by
him
for
the
year
that
(a)
his
income
for
the
year,
other
than
his
income
earned
in
the
year
in
a
province,
bears
to
(b)
his
income
for
the
year.
154(1)
The
Minister
may,
with
the
approval
of
the
Governor
in
Council,
enter
into
an
agreement
with
the
government
of
a
province
to
provide
for
tax
transfer
payments
and
the
terms
and
conditions
relating
to
such
payments.
(4)
Where,
pursuant
to
an
agreement
entered
into
under
subsection
(1),
an
amount
has
been
transferred
by
the
government
of
a
province
to
the
Minister
with
respect
to
an
individual,
the
amount
shall,
for
all
purposes
of
this
Act,
be
deemed
to
have
been
received
by
the
Receiver
General
on
account
of
the
individual's
tax
under
this
Part
for
the
year
in
respect
of
which
the
amount
was
transferred.
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
(c)
he
was,
at
any
time
in
the
year,
(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.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.
.
.
.
4.01(b)
Taxation
Act
(Québec)
8.
An
individual
is
deemed
to
have
been
resident
in
Québec
during
the
whole
of
a
taxation
year
if:
in
that
year,
(a)
he
sojourned
in
Québec
for
a
period
or
periods
comprising
183
days
or
more
and
was
ordinarily
resident
outside
Canada;
(b)
he
was
a
member
of
the
Canadian
Armed
Forces
and
was
resident
in
Québec
immediately
prior
to
his
departure
from
Canada
to
perform
his
military
service
in
a
foreign
country;
(c)
he
was
an
ambassador,
member
of
parliament,
officer,
high
commissioner,
minister,
servant
or
senator
of
Canada,
or
an
agent-general,
officer
or
servant
of
a
province
and
was
resident
in
Québec
immediately
prior
to
election,
employment
or
appointment
by
Canada
or
the
province
or
received
representation
allowances
in
respect
of
the
year;
(1982,
c.
38,
section
11.)
(d)
he
performed
services
in
a
country
other
than
Canada
under
a
prescribed
international
development
assistance
program
of
the
Gouvernement
du
Québec
or
of
the
Government
of
Canada
and
he
was
resident
in
Québec
at
any
time
in
the
six
months
preceding
the
day
on
which
such
services
commenced;
(e)
he
was
the
spouse
of
an
individual
contemplated
in
paragraph
b,
c,
or
d
living
with
him,
if
he
was
resident
in
Québec
during
a
previous
year;
or
(f)
he
was
a
dependent
child
described
in
paragraph
b
or
c
of
section
695
of
an
individual
described
in
paragraph
b,
c
or
d.
(1986,
c.
15,
section
34.)
4.02
Case
law
The
case
law
considered
by
the
Court
is
as
follows:
1.
Crossley
v.
M.N.R.,
(T.C.C.),
File
No.
86-1758
(unreported);
2.
Boisvert
and
Gibeault
v.
M.N.R.,
[1991]
1
C.T.C.
2573,
91
D.T.C.
279;
3.
Naud
v.
M.N.R.,
[1992]
1
C.T.C.
2760;
4.
Joyal
v.
M.N.R.,
(T.C.C.),
File
No.
91-1091
(unreported).
4.03
Analysis
4.03.1
The
problem
raised
by
the
appellant
has
been
raised
by
a
number
of
teachers
in
the
same
situation.
As
the
appellant
pointed
out,
she
was
assessed
for
the
1983,
1984
and
1985
taxation
years
on
the
basis
of
the
return
she
filed,
that
is,
on
the
basis
of
the
instructions
given
by
the
Department
of
Revenue.
In
the
fall
of
1983,
the
instructions
issued
by
Revenue
Canada
did
support
the
manner
in
which
the
appellant
filed
her
return.
Revenue
Canada
had
given
these
instructions
in
error,
and
they
were
changed
for
the
1986
taxation
year
by
the
instructions
dated
February
7,
1987
(Exhibit
A-2)
(3.09,
3.10,
3.11).
In
1986,
the
appellant
was
assessed
according
to
this
new
approach.
Exhibit
A-2
also
related
to
the
1986
taxation
year
and
was
a
correction
to
an
earlier
instruction,
the
one
explained
to
them
in
1983.
4.03.2
In
Boisvert
and
Gibeault
(4.02(2)),
the
summary
in
the
Dominion
Tax
Cases
at
pages
752
and
753
clearly
explains
this
error
and
the
reasons
of
Chief
Judge
Couture
for
allowing
René
Gibeault's
1985
year,
and
for
refusing
Robert
Boisvert's
1986
year.
This
summary
reads
as
follows:
The
taxpayers
RG
and
RB
were
members
of
the
overseas
Canadian
Forces
school
staff
in
Germany.
They
had
formerly
been
employed
by
school
boards
in
the
province
of
Québec.
During
RG's
1985
taxation
year
and
during
RB's
1986
taxation
year,
their
respective
salaries
were
paid
by
their
said
school
boards
and
the
latter
effected
source
deductions
for
both
federal
and
Québec
income
tax.
In
filing
their
returns
for
their
respective
1985
and
1986
taxation
years
as
deemed
residents
of
Canada
under
paragraph
250(1)(d.1)
of
the
Act,
both
taxpayers
calculated
their
basic
federal
tax
and
added
thereto
47
per
cent
thereof
because
such
income
had
not
been
earned
in
a
province.
Then,
in
accordance
with
the
1985
Revenue
Canada
tax
guide,
they
deducted
from
the
resulting
total
tax
both
the
federal
and
Québec
income
tax
which
had
been
deducted
at
source.
In
assessing
the
taxpayers
in
respect
of
the
taxation
years
in
question,
the
Minister
treated
them
as
deemed
residents
of
the
province
of
Québec
and
assessed
the
basic
federal
tax.
Rather
than
adding
tax
at
the
rate
of
47
per
cent
thereof,
however,
he
granted
them
a
tax
credit
in
the
form
of
a
refundable
Québec
abatement,
as
if
the
income
had
been
earned
in
Québec.
He
did
not,
however,
credit
them
with
the
Québec
tax
withheld
at
source.
Both
taxpayers
appealed
to
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada.
Held:
RG's
appeal
with
respect
to
the
1985
taxation
year
was
allowed
while
RB's
appeal
with
respect
to
the
1986
taxation
year
was
dismissed.
The
assessing
procedure
used
by
the
Minister
was
without
statutory
foundation.
On
the
other
hand,
the
Court
was
without
jurisdiction
to
direct
the
Minister
to
credit
against
the
federal
tax
owing
by
the
taxpayers,
the
amounts
of
Québec
income
tax
which
had
been
withheld
from
them
at
source
under
the
provisions
of
Québec’s
Taxation
Act.
Since
the
taxpayer
RG
had
followed,
and
had
consequently
been
misled
by
the
instructions
in
Revenue
Canada’s
1985
guide,
however,
it
was
in
order
for
the
Minister
to
take
the
necessary
administrative
steps
under
the
Financial
Administration
Act
to
ensure
that
he
was
eventually
credited
with
the
Québec
income
tax
withheld.
RB,
on
the
other
hand,
was
in
a
different
position,
inasmuch
as
the
1986
guide
had
been
amended
to
comply
with
the
Minister’s
non-statutory
approach.
[Translation.]
4.03.3
In
this
case,
the
appellant's
year
in
issue
is
1986,
and
it
must
be
assessed
in
accordance
with
the
instructions,
Exhibit
A-2,
which
contain
no
error
and
are
in
accordance
with
the
Act.
4.03.4
The
appellant
argued
that
she
was
not
a
resident
of
Québec
in
1986.
However,
her
income
tax
return
stated
that
in
1986
she
was
an
employee
of
the
Commission
scolaire
Mont-Valin
de
Chicoutimi
(3.13).
Her
salary
was
paid
into
a
bank
account
in
a
Québec
banking
institution.
When
she
returns
to
Québec,
her
employer
will
have
to
continue
to
provide
her
with
employment.
All
these
ties
are
such
that
the
appellant
had
her
residence
in
Québec
in
1986,
in
the
ordinary
meaning
of
the
word"residence".
4.03.5
In
Joyal
(4.02(4)),
the
appellant
claimed
a
refund
of
provincial
income
tax
for
the
1988
taxation
year,
as
did
the
appellant
in
this
case
and
the
appellants
Boisvert
(4.02(2))
and
Naud
(4.02(3)).
In
the
latter
case,
the
Court
made
the
following
comments:
Although
the
facts
involve
several
major
legal
elements
(residence,
jurisdiction
of
Québec,
and
so
on),
only
one
element,
however,
is
in
issue:
whether
the
respondent
must
allow
the
appellant
a
credit
equal
to
the
Québec
tax
deducted
at
source,
in
the
amount
of
$6,460.01.
There
is
no
legal
basis
which
could
authorize
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
to
order
the
federal
Department
of
Revenue
to
credit
and
refund
to
the
appellant
the
amount
of
$6,460.01
deducted
at
source
by
the
Commission
Scolaire
régionale
Chauveau
under
the
Québec
Taxation
Act.
The
$6,640.01
deducted
at
source
never
went
into
the
coffers
of
Revenue
Canada.
How
can
Revenue
Canada
credit
it
and
return
it
to
the
appellant
unless
there
is
a
clear
statutory
provision
to
that
effect?
This
amount
was
paid
into
the
coffers
of
Revenu
Québec,
which
dealt
with
it
in
accordance
with
the
taxation
act
of
that
province
and
refunded
to
the
appellant
the
amount
he
had
coming
to
him.
[Translation.]
In
Boisvert
(4.02(3)),
Judge
Couture
made
the
following
comments
at
pages
2577
(D.T.C.
755-56):
In
the
appeals
before
us,
the
appellants
ask
the
Court
to
order
the
respondent
to
repay
them
the
tax
deducted
at
source
for
the
purposes
of
the
Taxation
Act
by
granting
them
a
credit
for
that
tax
from
their
federal
tax.
The
Court
does
not
have
the
power
to
issue
such
an
order.
[Translation]
4.04
The
reassessment
made
by
the
respondent
must
be
upheld.
5.
Conclusion
For
the
foregoing
reasons,
the
appeal
must
be
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content