Tardif
T.C.J.:
This
is
an
appeal
from
a
notice
of
assessment
for
the
1995
taxation
year;
for
that
year,
the
appellant
claimed
a
dependant
tax
credit
in
respect
of
his
mother,
which
the
respondent
disallowed.
The
appellant
admitted
all
of
the
facts
assumed
by
the
respondent
in
support
of
the
assessment.
Those
facts
are
as
follows:
(a)
Eidi
Ghnim
is
the
appellant’s
mother;
(b)
Eidi
Ghnim
was
born
in
1917;
(c)
Eidi
Ghnim
is
considered
totally
dependent
on
the
appellant
by
the
government
pursuant
to
an
immigrant
sponsorship
contract;
(d)
Eidi
Ghnim
has
no
mental
or
physical
infirmities;
(e)
for
the
1995
taxation
year,
the
appellant
is
not
entitled
to
the
dependant
tax
credit
for
his
mother,
Eidi
Ghnim,
because
she
has
no
mental
or
physical
infirmities.
When
he
testified,
the
appellant
stated
that
the
first
part
of
subparagraph
(c)
should
have
been
worded
as
follows:
(c)
Eidi
Ghnim
is
considered
totally
dependent....
During
his
testimony,
he
clearly
stated
that
he
was
not
challenging
the
constitutionality
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
(“the
Act”)
or
relying
on
the
provisions
of
the
Canadian
Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms.
He
basically.
testified
that
his
80-year-old
mother
could
not
fit
in
because
of
her
language,
age
and
education.
He
said
that
since
he
signed
a
10-year
immigrant
sponsorship
contract,
his
mother
was
totally
dependent
on
him
pursuant
to
that
contract.
He
explained
that
he
neither
understood
nor
accepted
the
fact
that
there
was
no
consistency
between
his
contractual
obligations
and
his
tax
liabilities.
He
also
stated
that
he
had
made
the
Department
of
Finance
aware
of
his
complaint.
He
testified
that
he
has
great
respect
for
and
is
deeply
grateful
to
Canadian
society,
but
said
that
his
appeal
was
motivated
essentially
by
considerations
of
fairness
and
justice;
the
monetary
consequences
were
completely
minor
and
secondary.
The
appellant’s
case
inspires
a
great
deal
of
sympathy,
especially
since
his
arguments
are
logical
and
reasonable.
The
relevant
legal
provisions
read
as
follows:
Section
118:
Personal
credits.
(1)
For
the
purpose
of
computing
the
tax
payable
under
this
Part
by
an
individual
for
a
taxation
year,
there
may
be
deducted
an
amount
determined
by
the
formula
A
x
B
where
À
is
the
appropriate
percentage
for
the
year,
and
B
is
the
total
of,
(d)
Dependants
—
for
each
dependant
of
the
individual
for
the
year
who
(i)
attained
the
age
of
18
years
before
the
end
of
the
year,
and
(ii)
was
dependent
on
the
individual
because
of
mental.
or
physical
infirmity....
(Emphasis
added)
(6)
Definition
of
“dependant”.
For
the
purposes
of
paragraphs
(1)(d)
and
(4)(e),
“dependant”
of
an
individual
for
a
taxation
year
means
a
person
who
at
any
time
in
the
year
is
dependent
on
the
individual
for
support
and
is
(b)
the
parent,
grandparent,
brother,
sister,
uncle,
aunt,
niece
or
nephew,
if
resident
in
Canada
at
any
time
in
the
year,
of
the
individual
or
of
the
individual’s
spouse.
The
applicable
legal
provisions
are
very
clear
and
leave
little
room
for
interpretation.
To
be
entitled
to
the
credit,
it
is
essential
that
there
be
a
person
who
is
dependent
because
of
mental
or
physical
infirmity.
To
succeed,
the
appellant
had
to
prove
on
a
balance
of
evidence
that
his
mother
had
a
mental
or
physical
infirmity.
The
appellant
very
honestly
stated
that
his
mother,
who
was
not
at
the
hearing,
did
not
have
an
infirmity.
He
simply
told
the
Court
that
his
mother’s
advanced
age,
ignorance
of
the
language
and
inability
to
read
or
understand
the
country’s
languages
made
her
totally
dependent
on
him
and
his
immediate
family.
This
situation
gives
rise
to
a
great
deal
of
sympathy,
but
unfortunately
it
is
not
covered
by
the
Act’s
provisions.
While
the
appellant’s
efforts
are
commendable,
they
are
not
being
directed
at
the
proper
target;
this
is
a
problem
that
falls
under
Parliament’s
jurisdiction
much
more
than
the
jurisdiction
of
this
Court.
Regretfully,
I
must
dismiss
the
appeal.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content