Tremblay,
T.C.J.:—This
appeal
was
heard
on
July
15,
1986
at
the
City
of
St.
John,
New
Brunswick.
1.
The
Point
at
Issue
The
point
is
whether
the
appellant
is
correct
in
the
computation
of
the
child
tax
credits
for
the
1982
taxation
year
to
claim
$311.85.
She
took
into
consideration
that
her
husband’s
income
was
$10,136.45
in
the
calculation
of
the
family
income.
However,
according
to
the
respondent,
the
husband’s
income
in
1982
was
$12,358.95
and
therefore
the
claimed
child
tax
credit
of
$311.85
has
to
be
diminished
by
$89.30.
2.
The
Burden
of
Proof
2.01
The
burden
of
proof
is
on
the
appellant
to
show
that
the
respondent’s
assessment
is
incorrect.
This
burden
of
proof
results
particularly
from
several
judicial
decisions,
including
the
judgment
delivered
by
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
the
same
judgment,
the
Court
decided
that
the
assumed
facts
on
which
the
respondent
based
his
assessment
or
reassessment
are
also
deemed
to
be
correct.
In
the
present
case,
the
assumed
facts
are
described
in
the
reply
to
notice
of
appeal
as
follows:
4.
The
Appellant
appealed
the
said
reassessment
before
this
Honourable
Court
by
Notice
of
Appeal
dated
August
22,
1984.
5.
In
reassessing
the
Appellant
for
her
1982
taxation
year,
the
Respondent
made
the
following
assumptions
of
fact:
(a)
the
Appellant
and
Carl
Ford
were
married
and
were
residing
together
at
the
end
of
December
of
her
1982
taxation
year;
(b)
the
Appellant
claimed
for
her
1982
taxation
year
a
child
tax
credit
of
$311.85;
(c)
the
Appellant
arrived
at
the
aforementioned
amount
by,
inter
alia,
incorrectly
assuming
that
her
husband’s
income
for
his
1982
taxation
year
was
$10,136.45;
(d)
the
income
of
the
Appellant’s
husband
for
the
1982
taxation
year
was
$12,358.95,
not
$10,136.45
as
claimed
by
the
Appellant.
3.
The
Facts
The
material
facts
are
not
in
dispute.
3.01
A
child
tax
credit
claimed
is
always
based
on
the
family
income.
3.02
The
child
tax
credit
of
$311.85
claimed
by
the
appellant
in
her
1982
return
is
based
on
the
appellant's
income
of
$16,816.21
and
on
her
husband's
net
income
$12,358.95,
the
latter
appearing
on
line
41
of
the
1982
income
tax
return
of
Mr.
Ford.
3.03
However,
included
in
this
amount
of
$12,358.95
is
an
actual
dividend
from
a
Canadian
corporation
for
the
amount
of
$4,445.
Pursuant
to
section
82
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
50
per
cent
of
the
actual
dividend
must
be
added
in
the
computation
of
the
net
income,
the
amount
of
$2,227.50
is
therefore
also
part
of
the
net
income
of
the
appellant's
husband
on
line
41
of
his
income
tax
return
i.e.,
$12,358.95
(Exhibit
A-1).
3.04
The
appellant,
in
the
computation
of
the
child
tax
credit,
deducted
from
the
said
net
income
of
$12,358.95,
the
added
amount
of
$2,227.50
provided
by
section
82
of
the
Act,
and
only
took
into
account
the
actual
dividend
received
by
her
husband
of
$4,445.
Therefore,
in
the
computation
of
the
child
tax
credit,
she
used
as
net
income
$10,136.45
rather
than
$12,358.95
(Exhibit
A-1).
4.
Law
—
Analysis
4.01
Law
The
main
provisions
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
involved
in
this
case
are
subsection
2(1)
and
paragraphs
3(a),
12(1
)(j),
82(1)(a),
(b),
122.2(1
)(a),
(2)(b).
They
read
as
follows:
2.
(1)
An
income
tax
shall
be
paid
as
hereinafter
required
upon
the
taxable
income
for
each
taxation
year
of
every
person
resident
in
Canada
at
any
time
in
the
year.
3.
The
income
of
a
taxpayer
for
a
taxation
year
for
the
purposes
of
this
Part
is
his
income
for
the
year
determined
by
the
following
rules:
(a)
determine
the
aggregate
of
amounts
each
of
which
is
the
taxpayer’s
income
for
the
year
(other
than
a
taxable
capital
gain
from
the
disposition
of
a
property)
from
a
source
inside
or
outside
Canada,
including,
without
restricting
the
generality
of
the
foregoing,
his
income
for
the
year
from
each
office,
employment,
business
and
property;
12.
(1)
There
shall
be
included
in
computing
the
income
of
a
taxpayer
for
a
taxation
year
as
income
from
a
business
or
property
such
of
the
following
amounts
as
are
applicable:
(j)
any
amount
required
by
subdivision
h
to
be
included
in
computing
the
taxpayer's
income
for
the
year
in
respect
of
a
dividend
paid
by
a
corporation
resident
in
Canada
on
a
share
of
its
capital
stock;
82.
(1)
In
computing
the
income
of
a
taxpayer
for
a
taxation
year,
there
shall
be
included
(a)
all
amounts
received
by
him
in
the
year
from
corporations
resident
in
Canada
as,
on
account
or
in
lieu
of
payment
of,
or
in
satisfaction
of,
taxable
dividends,
plus
(b)
where
the
taxpayer
is
an
individual,
other
than
a
trust
that
is
a
registered
charity,
/2
of
the
aggregate
of
all
amounts
described
in
paragraph
(a)
received
by
him
in
the
year
from
taxable
Canadian
corporations
122.2
(1)
Where
an
individual
(other
than
a
trust)
files
with
his
return
of
income
(other
than
a
return
of
income
filed
under
subsection
70(2)
or
104(23),
paragraph
128(2)(e)
or
subsection
150(4))
under
this
Part
for
a
taxation
year
a
prescribed
form,
containing
prescribed
information,
completed
(a)
jointly
by
the
individual
and
his
spouse,
where
the
individual
was
married
and
resided
with
his
spouse
at
the
end
of
December
of
the
year,
and
(2)
In
this
section,
(b)
“income
of
the
individual’s
family”
for
a
taxation
year
means
the
aggregate
of
(i)
the
income
for
the
year
of
the
individual,
and
(ii)
the
income
for
the
year
of
his
spouse
while
married,
if
the
individual
resided
with
his
spouse
at
the
end
of
December
of
the
year.
4.02
Analysis
4.02.1
The
crux
of
the
matter
is
the
interpretation
of
the
word
"income”
in
subparagraph
122.2(2)(b)(ii)
of
the
Act
quoted
above.
4.02.2
It
is
a
general
principle
of
interpretation
that
the
same
word
used
in
different
provisions
of
the
same
Act
must
have
the
same
meaning.
The
word
“income”
used
alone
means
net
income
by
opposition
to
taxable
income
and
to
gross
income.
However,
the
expression
"gross
income”
and
"net
income”
is
not
used
in
the
Income
Tax
Act.
The
computation
of
the
income
is
provided
in
Division
B
of
Part
I
of
the
Act
(sections
3
to
108).
The
computation
of
taxable
income
is
provided
in
Division
C
and
Division
D
of
Part
I
of
the
Act
(sections
109
to
116).
4.02.3
The
income
is
the
result
of
the
computation
as
provided
in
Division
B.
The
additions
include
the
50
per
cent
of
the
actual
dividend
received,
provided
in
section
82
of
the
Act
quoted
above,
that
the
appellant
did
not
take
into
account
in
the
computation
of
her
husband’s
net
income.
Obviously
as
shown
in
the
evidence,
this
has
an
effect
in
the
result
of
the
calculation
of
the
family
income
which
is
a
basis
of
the
computation
of
the
child
tax
credit.
4.02.4
The
Court
understands
that
the
appellant,
at
first
glance,
wants
to
consider
only
the
actual
dividend
received
and
not
the
addition
provided
in
section
82
of
the
Act.
However,
the
child
tax
credit
which
is
provided
in
the
Income
Tax
Act
must
be
computed
pursuant
to
the
principles
of
interpretation
of
the
said
Act.
And,
it
is
obvious
that
the
word
“income”
provided
in
subparagraph
122.2(2)(b)(ii)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
must
have
the
same
meaning
as
the
word
“income”
in
all
other
provisions
of
the
Act.
It
is
the
net
income
as
computed
by
the
appellant’s
husband
in
his
income
tax
return.
The
amount
is
$12,358.95
and
not
$10,136.45.
4.02.5
The
assessment
issued
by
the
respondent
must
be
maintained.
5.
Conclusion
For
these
reasons,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content