M
J
Bonner:—The
appellant
appeals
from
assessments
of
income
tax
for
the
1976
and
1977
taxation
years.
On
assessment
the
Minister
disallowed
deductions
in
respect
of
legal
costs
incurred
by
the
appellant
in
each
year
in
the
course
of
successfully
defending
applications
made
by
his
former
spouse
for
increases
in
the
quantum
of
maintenance
awarded
to
her
by
judgment
in
previous
litigation.
Counsel
for
the
Minister
and
for
the
appellant
in
these
appeals
were
agreed
that
if
the
applications
had
been
successful
the
amounts
already
deductible
by
the
appellant
under
section
60
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
would
have
been
increased.
On
behalf
of
the
appellant
it
was
contended:
(a)
The
outlays
in
question
were
made
for
the
purpose
of
gaining
or
producing
income
by
means
of
the
minimization
of
deductible
expense
and
they
were
therefore
deductible
under
paragraph
18(1)(a)
of
the
Act;
and
(b)
they
were
not
outlays
of
capital.
With
great
deference
to
the
carefully
reasoned
argument
advanced
by
counsel
for
the
appellant
I
must
conclude
that
the
amounts
in
question
are
not
deductible.
In
the
first
place
I
must
observe
that
paragraph
18(1)(a)
of
the
Act
does
not
permit
deductions.
It
is
a
plainly
worded
prohibition
of
deductions
in
respect
of
outlays
or
expenses
except
to
the
extent
that
they
were
“..
.
made
or
incurred
by
the
taxpayer
for
the
purpose
of
gaining
or
producing
income
from
the
business
or
property.
..
.”
Paragraph
18(1)(a)
of
the
Act
has
regard
to
the
process
of
the
computation,
for
the
purpose
of
subsection
9(1),
of
“profit”
from
a
business
or
property.
It
has
application,
as
plainly
indicated
by
its
opening
words,
only
where
such
a
profit
is
being
calculated.
When
a
claim
for
alimony
or
maintenance
is
asserted
against
a
person,
nothing
in
the
activity
of
that
person
in
respect
of
that
claim
has
anything
to
do
with
a
process
involving
the
earning
of
profit
from
a
business
or
property.
Paragraphs
60(b)
and
(c)
of
the
Act
permit
deductions
in
respect
of
payments
made
in
the
circumstances
described
therein
of
amounts
which,
were
it
not
for
those
provisions,
would
have
nothing
whatever
to
do
with
the
computation
of
income.
Expenditures
of
the
type
described
in
those
provisions
are
essentially
expenditures
of
a
personal
nature
made
out
of
capital
or
income
after
it
has
been
earned.
For
this
reason
the
courts
have,
with
considerable
consistency,
denied
deductions
of
alimony
and
maintenance
payments
not
falling
within
the
precise
words
of
those
provisions.
To
permit
deductions
of
the
sort
sought
here
would
be
to
engage
in
“judicial
legislation”
quite
unwarranted
by
the
law
and
would
result
in
the
extension
of
those
anomalous
provisions
far
beyond
anything
in
the
contemplation
of
the
Legislature
at
the
time
that
they
were
enacted.
For
the
foregoing
reasons
the
appeals
are
dismissed.
Appeals
dismissed.
Email this Content