Docket: 2009-1074(IT)I
BETWEEN:
JOANNE THÉRÈSE PAQUETTE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on February 8, 2010, at Ottawa, Canada.
Before: The Honourable
Justice Patrick Boyle
Appearances:
|
For the appellant:
|
The
appellant herself
|
|
Counsel for the respondent:
|
Natasha Wallace
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the reassessment made under
the Income Tax Act with respect to the appellant’s 2005 taxation year is
dismissed in accordance with the Reasons for Judgment attached hereto.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada,
this 19th day of March
2010.
"Patrick Boyle"
Citation: 2010 TCC 163
Date: 20100319
Docket: 2009-1074(IT)I
BETWEEN:
JOANNE THÉRÈSE PAQUETTE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Boyle J.
[1]
Ms. Paquette has
appealed her 2005 taxation year in respect of approximately $18,000 of child
support received from her ex‑husband, Kevin Mannion, in that year.
That amount consists principally of arrears from prior years in respect of her
son while he was attending university. Ms. Paquette complains that, given
her very modest income, the arrears were taxed at a greater rate than they
would have been had they been received on time or taxed in the years to which
they relate. She also claims that since her income is so limited, and her
income earning prospects are poor given her disabilities, the reassessment has
given rise to a debt she will forever remain unable to pay.
[2]
Ms. Paquette was
divorced from her ex‑husband in 1990. A 1995 Ontario court order last set
the amount of child support payments payable to Ms. Paquette for their son
and their daughter at $325 monthly each. While Mr. Mannion sought a court
order in 2005 to retroactively terminate his child support obligation in
respect of his son for years his son was in university, the ex‑husband’s
application was unsuccessful and the 1995 court order remained unamended.
Accordingly, all child support payments received by Ms. Paquette are
properly required to be included in her income and the new child support régime
applicable to court orders and agreements after April 1997 does not apply in
this case.
[3]
I am therefore required
to dismiss this appeal. This Court does not have any jurisdiction or discretion
to grant this taxpayer or any other taxpayer any relief based on compassionate,
economic, equitable, or other policy or similar grounds. It must apply the law
as passed by Parliament.
[4]
However, I urge the
Canada Revenue Agency (the “CRA”) to consider reassessing Ms. Paquette as
appropriate to remove any additional tax burden payable because she received a
lump sum amount of arrears which were subject to a higher effective tax rate
than had they been received when due. I would also urge the CRA to consider
allowing Ms. Paquette to make any available claim for the transfer of any
unused tuition and education tax credits from her son or her daughter that
might reduce her additional taxes payable as a result of this. As to
Ms. Paquette’s ability to pay this debt, I must defer to the CRA’s
collection policies and trust it will deal with her equitably having regard to
her financial and personal circumstances.
[5]
The appeal is
dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 19th day of March 2010.
"Patrick Boyle"
CITATION: 2010 TCC 163
COURT FILE NO.: 2009-1074(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: JOANNE THÉRÈSE
PAQUETTE v. HER MAJESTY
THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Canada
DATE OF HEARING: February 8, 2010
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The
Honourable Justice Patrick Boyle
DATE OF JUDGMENT: March 19, 2010
APPEARANCES:
|
For the
appellant:
|
The appellant herself
|
|
Counsel for the
respondent:
|
Natasha Wallace
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent: John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
Email this Content