Docket: 2012-1507(IT)I
BETWEEN:
DARLENE STEWART,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on December 4, 2012 at Toronto, Ontario
By: The Honourable
Justice J.M. Woods
Appearances:
|
For the
Appellant:
|
The
Appellant herself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Kathleen Beahen
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The
appeal with respect to an assessment made under the Income Tax Act for
the 2010 taxation year is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Ontario this 12th day of December 2012.
“J. M. Woods”
Citation: 2012 TCC 435
Date: 20121212
Docket: 2012-1507(IT)I
BETWEEN:
DARLENE STEWART,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Woods J.
[1]
This appeal concerns the public transit
tax credit that was introduced in the Income Tax Act in 2006.
[2]
In 2010, Darlene Stewart used the GO transit system in the Toronto area to commute to and from work five times a week. She usually purchased monthly passes
but when she took vacation she purchased passes that were unrestricted as to
time but were limited to 10 rides. This was the most cost-effective way to
purchase tickets during this period.
[3]
In Ms. Stewart’s income tax return
for the 2010 taxation year, she claimed a tax credit with respect to both the
monthly passes and the 10-ride passes. The Minister allowed the credit for the
monthly passes only.
[4]
The question in this appeal is
whether the Minister properly disallowed the tax credit for the 10-ride passes.
[5]
The 10-ride passes were not
electronic and were purchased for a total of $841.
Analysis
[6]
In order for this Court to provide
the relief that Ms. Stewart seeks, the 10‑ride passes must satisfy the
requirements of the applicable legislation which is set out in section 118.02
of the Income Tax Act. Unfortunately for Ms. Stewart, the 10-ride passes
do not satisfy these requirements because they do not permit an unlimited
number of rides for a period of time.
[7]
The relevant provision is the
definition of “eligible public transit pass” in s. 118.02(1) of the Act.
It is reproduced below.
"eligible public transit pass" means a document
(a) issued by or on behalf of a qualified Canadian transit organization; and
(b) identifying the right of an individual who is the holder or owner of the document to use public commuter transit services of that qualified Canadian transit organization
(i) on an unlimited number of occasions and on any day on which the public commuter transit services are offered during an uninterrupted period of at least 28 days, or
(ii) on an unlimited number of occasions during an uninterrupted period of at least 5 consecutive days, if the combination of that document and one or more other such documents gives the right to the individual to use those public commuter transit services on at least 20 days in a 28-day period.
(Emphasis added.)
[8]
The 10-ride passes that were
purchased by Ms. Stewart did not provide unlimited rides for any particular
period of time. This is fatal to her claim because this is a requirement of the
legislation as shown by the underlined parts above.
[9]
Ms. Stewart places reliance on a
letter provided to her by the Canada Revenue Agency during the review of her
claim (Ex. A-1). The relevant part of the letter is reproduced below.
To
support passes for a period of less than a month, the pass must show it is
valid for at least 5 consecutive days and the combination of one or more passes
allow the use of the transit services for at least 20 days in a 28-day period.
[10]
It is understandable
that Ms. Stewart would seek to rely on this letter as it can be interpreted to
support her claim. However, this Court must apply the relevant provisions of
the Act, even if they conflict with what a taxpayer has been told by the
CRA.
[11]
I would also comment
that Ms. Stewart’s notice of appeal suggests that this Court wrote the above
letter. That is not the case. This Court is independent of the Canada Revenue
Agency.
[12]
Ms. Stewart’s notice of
appeal also mentions that she is aware of another rider whose claim for 10-ride
passes was audited and allowed. Unfortunately for Ms. Stewart, it is not possible
to provide relief to her on the ground that the Canada Revenue Agency provided
relief to another taxpayer. This Court must apply the applicable legislation.
[13]
Ms. Stewart submits in
her notice of appeal that the “letter of the law” needs to include the 10-ride
passes. This type of relief also cannot be provided by this Court. It is a
policy matter that is within the sole purview of Parliament.
[14]
Ms. Stewart further
submits that monthly passes are also not “unlimited” and therefore 10-ride
passes should be treated in the same manner. This submission also does not
assist this appeal. The 10-ride passes clearly do not qualify under the wording
of the applicable legislation.
[15]
Finally, I would note
this Court has previously decided that 10-ride GO passes do not qualify for the
credit: Taino v The Queen, 2012 TCC 272.
[16]
For all these reasons, the appeal
will be dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Ontario this 12th day of December
2012.
“J. M. Woods”
CITATION: 2012 TCC 435
COURT FILE NO.: 2012-1507(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: DARLENE STEWART v.
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: December 4, 2012
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The
Honourable Justice J.M. Woods
DATE OF JUDGMENT: December 12, 2012
APPEARANCES:
|
For the Appellant:
|
The Appellant herself
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Kathleen Beahen
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name: n/a
Firm:
For the
Respondent: William F. Pentney
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content