The
Chairman:—Appeal
from
an
income
tax
assessment
relating
to
1968.
It
was
heard
at
Toronto
where
the
appellant,
now
30
years
of
age,
resides
and
is
employed
by
Griffith
Laboratories
Ltd
as
a
maintenance
mechanic.
In
the
year
mentioned
his
declared
income
was
slightly
over
$7,500
and
from
this
sum
he
purported
to
deduct
$2,000
for
married
status,
$550
in
respect
of
two
very
young
daughters,
Claudine
and
Dianne,
living
in
Jamaica
and
$300
regarding
a
brother
then
23
years
of
age
who
was
said
to
be
attending
university
on
that
island.
The
Minister,
in
July
1969,
disallowed
all
these
deductions
and,
instead,
granted
the
appellant
an
exemption
of
$1,000
under
paragraph
26(1
)(b)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
This
appeal
duly
ensued.
The
Minister’s
reasons
for
the
action
taken
by
him
are
tritely
stated
to
be
as
follows:
(a)
the
appellant
was
single;
(b)
Dianne
Johnson
is
not
the
appellant’s
child;
(c)
there
is
no
such
person
as
Claudine
Johnson;
(d)
the
appellant
sent
no
money
to
Lloyd
Johnson
in
1968.
These
are
rather
startling
allegations
on
the
respondent’s
part,
but
he
has
set
them
forth
fully
in
black
and
white
and
the
appellant
was
faced
squarely
with
them
and
knew
exactly,
and
with
ample
notice,
what
was
in
issue.
He,
and
no
one
else,
gave
evidence,
either
oral
or
documentary.
His
testimony
was
a
general
denial
of
(a),
(b),
(c)
and
(d),
above,
but
I
did
not
find
him
either
reliable
or
satisfactory
as
a
witness.
His
evidence
lacked
any
ring
of
truthfulness.
It
was
acknowledged
that
the
so-described
daughters
were
under
the
roof
of
someone
in
Jamaica
and
that
this
part
of
the
maintenance,
at
least,
was
provided
by
some
person
other
than
the
appellant.
Also,
he
produced
no
acceptable
documentary
evidence
whatsoever
in
even
partial
refutation
of
the
respondent’s
allegations
and
what
little
he
had
to
say
left
me
quite
unconvinced
that
the
assessment
involved
was
in
any
way
incorrect.
The
brother,
furthermore,
because
of
his
age
alone
could
not
be
the
subject
of
a
deduction
under
paragraph
26(1
)(d).
The
entire
appeal
was
most
unsatisfactory
from
the
Board’s
standpoint
and
lacked
any
merit,
and,
as
was
stated
at
the
hearing’s
conclusion,
it
only
may
be
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content