Beaubier T.C.J.:
These appeals pursuant to the Informal Procedure were heard together on common evidence at Kamloops, British Columbia, on October 29, 1998. The Appellant was the only witness.
The Appellant claimed the equivalent-to-spouse deduction in 1995 and 1996. It was disallowed. He appealed. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal for the 1996 taxation year is, for practical purposes, similar to that for 1995. Those paragraphs read:
In so assessing the Appellant for the 1996 taxation year, the Minister made the following assumptions of fact:
(a) the Appellant and his former wife, Roswitha Goar, are the natural parents of the Child born May 12, 1987;
(b) the Appellant and his former spouse were divorced in 1990 and the Appellant was living separate and apart from her throughout 1996:
(c) the Appellant was not married at any lime during 1996;
(d) by Order of the Supreme Court of B.C. dated April 1990, the Appellant was required to and did make periodic maintenance payments of $250.00 per month for the maintenance of the Child:
(e) custody of the Child was shared between the Appellant and his exspouse;
(f) the Child had no income of her own:
(g) the Appellant was not entitled to claim an ‘equivalent-to-spouse amount’ in respect of the Child as he was not entitled to claim maintenance payments of $3,000 paid to his ex-spouse on the Child’s behalf when computing his income.
Assumptions 11(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) are true.
The Appellant testified that he pays about 71 per cent of the total amount of disbursements required to support the child Amanda. This testi- mony was not refuted. Therefore, he argues, he is primarily responsible for Amanda. To be clear, he also stated that this was because of his former wife’s financial circumstances. Based on this argument, the Appellant ar- cues that he is outside of the facts and decision of Sobier, J.T.C.C., in Wer- ring v. R., [1997] 3 C.T.C. 2876 (T.C.C.)], because he was primarily re- sponsible for Amanda and, therefore, he should be entitled to the equivalent-to-spouse deduction.
This Court accepts and adopts the reasoning of Sobier, J.T.C.C. in Wer- ring . It also accepts the numbers described by the Appellant and his arguent that in terms of measurable financial disbursements, he is paying 71 per cent of the amounts spent on Amanda. However, it is for the Court which deals with family matters to determine the responsibility of each for- mer spouse for a child.
To do that it must determine monetary matters and other matters which cannot be measured such as care, discipline, home life and many factors which are undefinable. All of these are part of a decision respecting the joint custody of a child, which is one of overall equality. It is not confined to financial matters even where as here it is a consent decision, the custody order is still the responsibility of the Court. The parties to that decision and that Court are presumed to know the law, including the Income Tax Act. It is only one factor in that Court’s award of joint custody.
This Court accepts the order of joint custody and what it implies, that all responsibilities of all kinds for Amanda are shared equally between the parents. For that reason and the reasons set out by Sobier, J.T.C.C in Werring the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Email this Content