Docket: 2008-3302(GST)I
BETWEEN:
JULIE DUMONT,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard
on September 10, 2009, at Montréal, Quebec
Before: The Honourable
Justice Paul Bédard
Appearances:
|
Agent for the Appellant:
|
Maxim Parenteau
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent :
|
Édith-Geneviève Giasson
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the goods and services tax
assessment under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act, notice of
which is dated October 18, 2007 and bears the number 84403 9180
RT0001, is dismissed without costs, in accordance with the attached Reasons for
Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 15th day of October 2009.
"Paul Bédard"
Translation
certified true
on this 26th day
of November 2009.
Brian McCordick,
Translator
Citation: 2009 TCC 517
Date: 20091015
Docket: 2008-3302(GST)I
BETWEEN:
JULIE DUMONT,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Bédard J.
[1]
This is an appeal from
an assessment made under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act ("the Act").
In an assessment dated October 18, 2007, the Respondent, acting
through the Minister of Revenue of Quebec ("the Minister"),
disallowed the Appellant's claim of a $2,534.84 goods and services tax (GST)
rebate in respect of new housing located at 2349‑2351 Charbonneau Street
in Terrebonne, Quebec ("the new housing").
[2]
In making the
assessment, the Minister relied, among other things, on the following
assumptions of fact:
[TRANSLATION]
(a)
The construction of the new housing in respect
of which a GST rebate was claimed ended on or about December 1, 2006. (admitted)
(b)
The new housing is a duplex. (admitted)
(c)
The Appellant did not build the new housing for
the purpose of using it as her primary place of residence. (denied)
(d)
The new housing was not the Appellant's primary
place of residence. (denied)
[3]
I note from the Notice
of Appeal that the Appellant in the case at bar is also contesting the
assessment against her under the Act respecting the Québec sales tax, by
which the Minister apparently also disallowed her Québec sales tax (QST) rebate
claim in respect of new housing. In this regard, I should emphasize from the
outset that this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear that appeal. If the
Appellant wishes to appeal from the assessment under the Act respecting the
Québec sales tax, the appropriate remedy is set out in sections 93.1.10 et
seq. of the Act respecting the Ministère du Revenu, R.S.Q.,
c. M-31, and the forum is the Court of Québec. This Court has
jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the assessment under Part IX of the
Act.
[4]
The only real issue in
the case at bar is whether the Appellant had new housing built for use as a
primary place of residence. This is because subsection 256(2) of the Act states
that an individual who has built a residential complex used by the individual
as a primary place of residence is entitled to a new housing GST rebate.
Preliminary remarks
[5]
I should begin by
noting that the Appellant was the only person who testified in support of her
position (other than Maxim Parenteau, who, by the Appellant's admission,
has been her common-law spouse since 2008 and therefore cannot be considered an
independent witness) and that she produced no documentary evidence. The
Appellant's evidence in support of her position that she had new housing built for
use as her primary place of residence was therefore essentially her own
testimony.
The Appellant's testimony
[6]
Essentially, the
Appellant's testimony (which was generally vague, imprecise, ambiguous and
frequently incomprehensible) was as follows:
(i)
She was a teacher in
2005 and 2006.
(ii)
Before moving into the
new housing in the summer of 2006, she had lived primarily with her parents on
Lauzon Street in Boisbriand. In this regard, I should note from the outset
that the Respondent adduced Exhibit I‑6, an excerpt from the records of
the Société de l'Assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ), which states that, from
September 6, 2005, to July 9, 2008, the Appellant's residential address was not
that of her parents but that of Maxim Parenteau, who resided on Charny Street
in Mascouche during that period. I should also note that the Appellant's
answers to the questions asked by counsel for the Respondent, who was seeking
explanations about this apparent contradiction, were so vague and ambiguous (if not
incomprehensible) that they sowed doubt in my mind as to the Appellant's
credibility. At most, the Appellant explained that she did indeed cohabit
with Maxim Parenteau during this period, but not ordinarily, given the nature
of their relationship. I should note that the Appellant's testimony with
respect to the nature of this relationship was no more informative.
(iii)
In
the spring of 2006, she had a duplex built on the land with the assistance of
Mr. Parenteau, who apparently supervised the work for her. I should
immediately note that Mr. Parenteau also bought some land on Charbonneau Street
in Terrebonne in 2005, and that he built a duplex on that land in the spring of
2006.
(iv)
In the summer of 2006, she
moved into the new housing. I should immediately note that the Appellant did
not see fit to support her allegations in this regard with serious documentary
evidence (such as address changes, moving-related receipts, proof of telephone,
cable and Internet installations, and notices to insurance companies) or with
credible and independent witnesses.
(v)
A month and a half
after moving, her difficult financial circumstances compelled her (much to her
regret) to rent out her lodging and move back to her parents' home. The
Appellant explained that she tried to find a solution to her financial problems
during this period. In this regard, she specified that she asked her parents
for help and tried to find a roommate who would share the costs of the lodging
in which she had lived, but that these efforts proved unsuccessful.
Mr. Parenteau's testimony
[7]
Mr. Parenteau's testimony
provided little useful information apart, perhaps, from an attempt to explain
the nature of the financial troubles which the Appellant was experiencing; according
to Mr. Parenteau's testimony, these troubles were related to construction cost
overruns, and they forced her to rent out her new housing. In addition,
Mr. Parenteau's testimony discloses that the Appellant lived in one unit of the
duplex for a short time in the summer of 2006, but that his finances then
forced him rent the unit to a third party.
Analysis and conclusion
[8]
In the case at bar, the
Appellant bore the burden of showing that she built new housing for use as her
primary place of residence. As I have stated, the Appellant was the only
person (other than Mr. Parenteau, who cannot be considered an independent
witness under the circumstances) who testified in support of her position, and
she produced no documentary evidence (such as evidence of address changes, or moving-related
invoices, or bills related to cable, Internet and telephone installations, or notices
to insurance companies, or correspondence with Hydro‑Québec). In sum, the
Appellant's case essentially turned on her testimony, which I found worthy of little
credibility. In other words, the Appellant could not hope to convince me with
generally vague, imprecise and often incomprehensible answers. Her answers to
questions posed by counsel for the Respondent, who was seeking explanations as
to why the SAAQ's records indicated that her residential address from September
6, 2005, to July 9, 2008, was Mr. Parenteau's address, not her parents' address,
were particularly vague, ambiguous and incomprehensible. Moreover, the Appellant
could have adduced documentary or testimonial evidence indicating that she
moved into the new housing unit and lived there for approximately 45 days. She did
not adduce such evidence. In sum, I do not accept the Appellant's version of
the facts.
[9]
For these reasons, the
appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa,
Canada, this 15th day of October 2009.
"Paul Bédard"
Translation
certified true
on this 26th day
of November 2009.
Brian McCordick,
Translator
Email this Content