Delmer
E
Taylor:—The
point
at
issue
in
this
appeal
is
whether
or
not
the
taxpayer
is
entitled
to
deductions
claimed
in
the
total
amount
of
$2,920
for
support
of
dependents
in
1976
as
follows:
Mr
Gurdev
Singh
Poonia,
|
father,
Punjab,
India
|
$720
|
|
Miss
Monjit
Kaur
Poonia,
|
|
|
stepsister,
India
|
720
|
|
Miss
Baljit
Kaur
Poonia,
|
|
|
stepsister,
India
|
390
|
|
Miss
Sarabjit
Kaur
Poonia,
|
|
|
stepsister,
India
|
390
|
|
Mr
Subhvinder
Singh
Mahil,
|
|
|
brother-in-law,
India
|
700
|
The
respondent
relied,
inter
alia,
upon
sections
3,
4
and
paragraph
109(1)(f)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
SC
1970-71-72,
c
63,as
amended.
The
appellant
is
a
resident
of
Vancouver,
British
Columbia,
who
contended
that
the
persons
noted
above
were
dependent
upon
him
for
support,
but
that
he
had
been
unable
to
obtain
confirmation
of
that
fact
which
Satisfied
Revenue
Canada
either
from
doctors
or
from
the
Government
of
India.
In
addition,
the
documentation
in
support
of
his
claim
that
the
payments
had
been
made
was
considered
inadequate
by
Revenue
Canada.
The
position
of
the
respondent
was
a
requirement
that
the
appellant
submit
proof
that:
—funds
in
the
amount
of
the
deduction
claimed
were
in
fact
remitted
to
those
people;
—
his
father,
stepsisters,
and
brother-in-law
were
dependent
upon
him
within
the
meaning
of
that
word
as
used
in
the
Income
Tax
Act.
The
appellant
at
the
hearing
was
unable
to
add
anything
to
the
meagre
information
already
available
to
Revenue
Canada,
and
it
is
the
conclusion
of
the
Board
that
the
appellant
has
not
shown
that
the
funds
claimed
were
in
fact
remitted
to
those
people.
No
determination
therefore
is
required
regarding
their
dependency
upon
the
appellant
for
support.
The
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content