P Kounnas v. Minister of National Revenue, [1980] CTC 2735, [1980] DTC 1622

Roland St-Onge:—The appeal of Mr P Kounnas came before me on March 6, 1980, at the City of Toronto, Ontario, and the issue is whether the appellant is entitled to deduct some expenses as alimony in his 1975 and 1976 taxation years.

The facts of this appeal are well set down at paragraphs 2 to 6 inclusive of the Reply to Notice of Appeal which are quoted below:

STATEMENTS OF FACTS:

2. In filing his return of income for the 1975 taxation year, the Appellant sought to deduct pursuant to Paragraph 60(c) of the Income Tax Act from his total income the sum of $5,882.49 which he calculated as follows:

Cash paid to estranged spouse	$2,600.00
Residence payments	2,100.00
Home insurance	100.00
Home maintenance	204.95
Utilities (hydro, gas, telephone, etc)	742.54
Car plates & insurance	135.00
	$5,882.49

3. In filing his return of income for the 1976 taxation year, the Appellant sought to deduct pursuant to Paragraph 60(c) of the Income Tax Act from his total income the sum of $6,668.08 which he calculated as follows:

Residence	$2,229.00
Cash paid to estranged spouse	2,600.00
Utilities	1,160.51
Residence insurance premiums	120.00
Residence maintenance	223.22
Insurance—plates—family car	280.00
Sundries (stamps—bank charges, etc)	55.35
	$6,668.08

4. By Notice of Reassessment dated December 7, 1978, the Respondent disallowed the claim for the 1975 taxation year except to the extent of $2,600 comprising the cash payments to the Appellant’s spouse.

5. By Notice of Reassessment dated February 10, 1978, the Respondent disallowed the claim for the 1976 taxation year except to the extent of $2,600 comprising the cash payment to the Appellant’s spouse.

6. In assessing tax as aforesaid, the Respondent relied upon the following findings or assumptions of fact:

(a) the Appellant was living apart from his spouse, Vehanoush Kounnas;

(b) the Appellant was required to make payments of $35 per week on behalf of his wife, Vehanoush Kounnas, and $15 per week on behalf of his son, Frixos, for a total weekly payment of $50, pursuant to a Court Order of His Honour Judge Gravely, dated February 12, 1974.

According to the evidence adduced, the payments made by the appellant other than the cash payments do not comply with the requirements of paragraph 60(c) of the Income Tax Act in that they were not paid pursuant to an order of a competent tribunal and were not an allowance payable on a periodic basis.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.