The
Chairman
(orally:
March
13,
1978)
[TRANSLATION]:—The
appeal
of
Mr
Fouad
Zaki
against
a
tax
assessment
for
the
1975
taxation
year.
Mr
Zaki
claimed
a
tax
exemption
of
$1,292
for
dependents
in
1975.
The
Minister
has
disallowed
this
claim,
and,
as
advanced
by
counsel
for
the
respondent,
both
in
his
answer
to
the
notice
of
appeal
and
in
his
argument,
there
appear
to
be
three
main
grounds.
This
appeal
comes
under
chapter
63,
paragraph
109(1)(f)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
RSC
1970-71-72,
as
amended.
I
believe
that
counsel
for
the
respondent
has
claimed,
or
at
any
rate
has
not
disputed,
that
the
sum
of
$1,292
may
have
been
sent
to
Egypt,
and
the
document
which
you
have,
a
sworn
statement
to
the
effect
that
this
sum
was
in
fact
sent,
I
accept
as
such.
Nor
do
I
question
the
two
medical
certificates
which
the
appellant
has
produced
as
evidence
that
the
sum
of
money
sent
to
Egypt
was
for
his
mother,
who
is
claimed
to
be
sixty-five
years
old,
and
for
his
sister,
who
suffered
a
nervous
breakdown
on
the
death
of
her
husband.
There
have
been
precedents
in
case
law
in
which
members
of
the
Board
have
seen
fit
to
reject
documents
not
formally
sworn
before
a
justice
of
the
peace;
however,
I
do
not
contest
the
validity
of
these
two
certificates,
very
probably
signed
by
a
doctor,
although
they
have
not
been
sworn.
What
has
drawn
my
attention
is
the
content
of
these
certificates.
As
regards
your
mother,
the
certificate
simply
states
that
she
is
sixty-five
years
old.
I
am
under
the
very
strong
impression
that
section
109
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
refers
specifically
to
“his
parent
or
grandparent
and
dependent
by
reason
of
mental
or
physical
infirmity’.
This,
in
my
opinion,
goes
much
further
than
mere
old
age
at
sixty-five.
Had
she
been
ninety
or
crippled,
she
might
have
been
considered
a
dependent
under
the
Act,
but
no
evidence
has
been
offered
other
than
the
mere
fact
of
age.
To
my
mind,
this
section
of
the
Act,
which
must
be
applied
very
restrictively,
does
not
include
among
the
infirm
any
person
sixty-five
years
of
age;
therefore,
I
do
not
think
that
this
section
of
the
Act
applies
in
this
case,
and
I
am
obliged,
in
the
circumstances,
to
dismiss
the
appeal.
With
respect
to
the
appellant’s
sister,
it
is
possible
that
the
shock
occasioned
by
her
husband’s
death
brought
on
a
nervous
breakdown.
It
is
also
possible
to
consider
her
case
as
one
of
mental
infirmity
for
that
period
of
time.
However,
as
well
as
requiring
that
the
person
to
whom
money
is
sent
be
physically
or
mentally
infirm,
the
appellant
must
also
show
that
such
person
was
solely
dependent
on
him;
in
your
sister’s
case,
there
is
no
such
evidence
that
she
was
dependent
on
you
at
that
time.
In
fact,
her
children
were
of
university
age,
and
able
to
work
and
contribute
to
her
support.
The
conclusion
must
therefore
be
drawn
that
the
point
at
issue
here
is
not
your
sister’s
mental
infirmity,
but
the
fact
that
she
was
not
dependent
on
you.
I
am
therefore
obliged
in
this
instance
as
well
to
dismiss
the
appeal.
Overall,
the
Income
Tax
Act
does
not
allow
me
to
grant
you
the
remedy
you
seek,
and
I
am
obliged
to
apply
the
Act
and
dismiss
the
appeal.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content