Bowman T.C.J.:
1 These appeals are from assessments for 1993 and 1994 and involve the deductibility of the amounts of $6,000 claimed by the appellant in each year under section 63 of the Income Tax Act as child care expenses.
2 The appellant is a nurse who immigrated to Canada from Poland some years before the years in issue. She was married and had two children who were 8 and 10 years old in 1993. During the entire period her husband was unemployed through disability and lived at home. He received a disability pension.
3 The appellant worked at a rest home during at least part of the years in question. She also followed an occupational training course as a nurse between August 1993 and July 1994. In 1993, her employment income was about $10,600, and her income from unemployment insurance was about $9,600. Her husband had income, presumably disability benefits, of about $13,000.
4 In each of 1993 and 1994, she claimed $6,000 as a deduction for child care expenses. No receipts were provided. This in itself is not necessarily fatal: Senger-Hammond v. R. (1996), [1997] 1 C.T.C. 2728 (T.C.C.). However in that case the appellant established precisely and meticulously the amount spent on baby sitters.
5 In this case the appellant stated that she hired a 15 year old boy named Martin to care for her two children. Much of the time that he spent with the children was when either Mrs. Lachowski or her husband were in the house. She testified that at least during the period August 1993 to July 1994 she attended classes from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Also her job at the rest home was from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. During the week the baby sitter came from about 4 p.m. to about 7 p.m. Also he evidently came on the weekends when she was working or attending courses.
6 I do not think that, on the evidence, the appellant has established her case for deductibility of $6,000 per year as an expense of child care. To begin with she has not established with any degree of precision just what she paid the baby sitter. I do not suggest that she was not attempting to tell the truth, but she could not inform me how many hours a week he worked, how much she paid him or what the hourly rate was. Moreover, I find $6,000 per year for a teenage baby sitter whose presence was of doubtful necessity, whose duties were not articulated and whose hours of work were, to say the least, elastic, to be surprisingly high in relation to the family income. While I daresay she paid him something it has certainly not been established how much. I suspect that the $6,000 claim was influenced by the limit under section 63.
7 While I must give credit to Mrs. Lachowski for the vigorous and responsible way in which she seeks to improve her professional qualifications, learn English and, at the same time, earn a living and care for her two children and sick husband, nonetheless, to meet the requirements of section 63 it is, as a bare minimum, necessary that the expenditures be established with some precision. This has, unfortunately, not been done.
8 The appeals are therefore dismissed.
Email this Content