Date: 19980529
Docket: 97-2099-IT-I
BETWEEN:
ALFRED YEBOAH,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons for Judgment
Hamlyn, J.T.C.C.
[1] The Appellant appeals from assessments of tax by the
Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") for the
1993 and 1994 taxation years, notices of which are dated August
19, 1996, by which the Minister: disallowed the deduction from
tax payable of a personal credit for married status under
paragraph 118(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (the
"Act") for the 1993 taxation year; disallowed
the deduction from tax payable of a personal credit for
dependants under paragraph 118(1)(d) of the
Act in the 1993 taxation year; disallowed a deduction for
child care expenses under section 63 of the Act in the
1993 taxation year; and disallowed a deduction for alimony or
maintenance payments under section 60 of the Act in
the 1994 taxation year.
[2] The Appellant also appeals from the disallowance of the
Ontario Tax Credits in his 1993 and 1994 taxation years.
[3] With respect to the balance of the claims, the Appellant
states, in relation to the personal credit for married status,
that he was in a common-law relationship with Ama Asantewaa for a
period of 14 months which included the 1993 taxation year
and therefore is entitled to the credit. With respect to the
personal credit for dependants, the Appellant claims that his
father resided with him in the 1993 taxation year and was a
"dependant" within the meaning of the Act. With
respect to the child care expenses, the Appellant claims that the
amount claimed was paid to Comfort Addai for baby-sitting his son
in the 1993 taxation year. The Appellant also claims that he made
alimony payments to his spouse Geogina Yeboah, during a period of
separation, in the 1994 taxation year. The Appellant submits that
the money was paid pursuant to a mutual separation agreement
between the parties.
[4] The position of the Minister is summarised in the Reply to
the Notice of Appeal, wherein the Minister states the following
assumptions of fact upon which he relied in assessing the
Appellant:
CHILD CARE EXPENSES
(a) in the 1993 taxation year, the Appellant's child
(Kwabena Appiah) lived in Ghana;
(b) the Appellant's child was at all material times a
non-resident;
(c) al all relevant times, the Appellant did not incur child
care expense for the purposes of providing in Canada child care
services for an eligible child (Kwabena Appiah) of the
Appellant;
ALIMONY OR MAINTENANCE
(d) alimony or maintenance paid was not paid pursuant to a
decree, order, or judgment of a competent tribunal or pursuant to
a written agreement, as alimony or other allowance payable on a
periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient thereof,
children of the marriage, or both the recipient and the children
of the marriage;
(e) the Appellant was not separated pursuant to a divorce,
judicial separation or written agreement from his spouse or
former spouse to whom he made the payments at the time the
payments were made and throughout the remainder of 1994 taxation
year;
EQUIVALENT-TO-SPOUSE
(f) in the 1993 taxation year, the Appellant made a claim for
equivalent-to-spouse amount in respect of his common law spouse,
Anna Asantewaa;
(g) the Appellant's spouse was living separate and apart
from the Appellant at the end of the 1993 taxation year;
(h) at no time during 1993 did the Appellant cohabit with
another person of the opposite sex in a conjugal relationship
with whom he had so cohabited throughout a twelve month period
ending before that time, nor did he cohabit with any such person
who was the parent of a child of whom the Appellant was also a
parent;
ADDITIONAL PERSONAL AMOUNT
(i) in the 1993 taxation year, the Appellant made a claim for
additional personal amount in respect of is father, Yaw Kobi;
(j) in the 1993 taxation year, the Appellant's father (Yaw
Kobi) lived in Ghana;
(k) the Appellant's father was at all material times a
non-resident;
(l) at no time in the 1993 taxation year was the
Appellant's father dependent on the Appellant for
support;
RENTAL PAYMENTS
(m) rental payments were not incurred by the Appellant.
ONTARIO TAX CREDITS
[5] In relation to the Ontario Tax Credits, the Minister also
submits, in the Reply to the Notice of Appeal, that this Court is
without jurisdiction to grant relief to the Appellant in respect
of the Ontario Tax Credits. This heading of relief was not
pursued by the Appellant in the Notice of Appeal and I agree it
is well established this Court does not have the jurisdiction to
entertain an appeal from an assessment of tax under the
Ontario Income Tax Act.
REMAINING ISSUES
[6] The issues to be decided are:
- is the Appellant entitled to a personal credit for married
status in the 1993 taxation year;
- is the Appellant entitled to a personal credit for
dependants in the 1993 taxation year;
- is the Appellant entitled to deduct child care expenses in
the 1993 taxation year; and
- is the Appellant entitled to deduct alimony or maintenance
payments in the 1994 taxation year.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
[7] As in all cases of this nature the Appellant has the onus,
that is the burden of proof, of establishing his claims.
[8] In this case much of the evidence was confused and
divergent.
PERSONAL CREDIT FOR MARRIED STATUS
[9] The Appellant has claimed a personal credit in respect of
his common law spouse.
[10] The word "spouse", for the period after 1992 is
defined under subsection 252(4) to include a person of the
opposite sex who cohabits with the taxpayer in a conjugal
relationship and has done so throughout a 12 month
period.
[11] The Appellant's direct evidence was that the
separation from his wife was effective March 10, 1992. The
Appellant's direct evidence was that the cohabitation with
his common law spouse commenced in December 1992 and lasted
through to February 1994.
[12] Counsel for the Minister presented to the Appellant
Schedule 6 of his 1993 tax return wherein in response to the
question:
If your marital status changed in 1993, give the date of the
change.
His reply was:
Day 02 Month 03
I therefore conclude the Appellant states his marital status
changed on March 2, 1993 and this response is a conflict
with his direct evidence.
[13] This written response takes the Appellant's facts
outside the 12 month period of subsection 252(4).
[14] With this inconclusive evidence the spousal credit claim
is dismissed.
PERSONAL DEPENDANT CREDIT
[15] The Appellant claims his father resided with him during
the 1993 taxation year. The Appellant states the father arrived
at his doorstep, with the Appellant's son, apparently from
the United States, and lived with him from April 1993 to May
1994. Thereafter the Appellant's father, the Appellant
states, returned to Ghana with his son.
[16] It has been said a state of dependency does not arise
simply because of the existence of the relationship of parent and
child.[1]
[17] However, the evidence was that the father, who was ill[2], sought refuge
with the Appellant, came to live with the Appellant for a period
of time albeit the father still maintained a home in Ghana and
did in fact eventually return to his home in Ghana.
[18] On balance, I conclude that the Appellant's father
was in fact dependant on the Appellant for the period of time he
resided in Canada.
CHILD CARE EXPENSES
[19] The child who arrived with the grandfather was living
with the Appellant when the alleged child care expenses were
incurred and it was stated the purpose of the child care expenses
was to allow the Appellant to work. The Appellant stated he paid
$150.00 per week for eight months in 1993 for child care
services.
[20] The problem that exists here, as in other parts of this
case, is the conflicting evidence. The Appellant, in evidence,
stated that the person who provided the child care services was
one Comfort Addai and a receipt was signed by Comfort Addai
($3,150.00) (Exhibit R-2).
[21] When presented with his 1993 tax return (Exhibit R-1),
the Appellant said that one Mercy Oppong provided the child care
services and the child care monies were paid to Mercy Oppong
($3,050.00).
[22] Clearly, the alleged monies paid are in conflict and who
performed the service is in conflict. The Appellant has not
discharged the onus on a balance of probabilities and on this
issue the Minister's assessment is upheld.
MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS
[23] The Appellant claims he was separated from his spouse
Geogina Yeboah in the 1994 taxation year and that he made support
payments pursuant to an agreement between the parties.
Notwithstanding his claim of separation during the 1994 taxation
year the Appellant apparently resumed cohabitation with his wife
and a son was born. The specific period of cohabitation was not
clearly specified.
[24] No evidence of a written separation agreement signed by
both the Appellant and his spouse was presented to the Court.
[25] In the absence of any separation agreement signed by both
parties before the Court, the appeal on this issue can not be
sustained.
DECISION
[26] The appeal from the assessment for the 1993 taxation year
is allowed and the assessment is referred back to the Minister of
National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment on the
basis that the Appellant's father was dependant on the
Appellant for a period of nine months (April to December) in 1993
pursuant to the claim for dependants (subsection 118(1)(d)
of the Act).
[27] The appeal from the assessment for the 1994 taxation year
is dismissed.
[28] The Appellant is entitled to no further relief.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 29th day of May 1998.
"D. Hamlyn"
J.T.C.C.