|
Docket: 2007-2994(IT)I
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
CAROLINE THIBEAULT,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
[OFFICIAL
ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on February 13, 2008, at Chicoutimi,
Quebec.
|
Before: The
Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
|
|
|
|
Appearances:
|
|
|
|
For the
Appellant:
|
The Appellant herself
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Christina Ham
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the redeterminations
dated March 3 and 20, 2006, by which the Minister of National Revenue disallowed
the Goods and Services Tax Credit for the 2002, 2003 and 2004 taxation years
and the Canada Child Tax Benefit for the 2004 base year, is dismissed without
costs in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 4th day of March 2008.
Tardif
J.
Translation
certified true
on this 14th day of
April 2008.
Susan Deichert, Reviser
|
Citation: 2008TCC119
|
|
Date: 20080304
|
|
Docket: 2007-2994(IT)I
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
CAROLINE THIBEAULT,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
And
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Tardif J.
[1] This is an appeal from the notice of
determination relating to the Goods and Services Tax Credit for the 2002, 2003
and 2004 taxation years and the determination concerning the Canada Child Tax
Benefit for the 2004 base year.
[2] By notice of redetermination dated March 3,
2006, the Minister revised the amount of the Appellant’s Goods and Services Tax
Credit and determined that she had received overpayments of $294 for the 2002
taxation year, $342 for the 2003 taxation year and $317 for the 2004 taxation
year.
[3] By notice of redetermination dated March 20,
2006, the Minister revised the Appellant’s Canada Child Tax Benefit and
determined that she had received an overpayment of $636.17 for the period from
November 2005 to February 2006, for the 2004 base year.
[4] On or about November 14, 2006, the Appellant
served the Minister with a notice of objection relating to the two
determinations.
[5] On November 22, 2006, the Minister agreed to
extend the time for the notice of objection dated November 14, 2006, to be made
valid.
[6] On February 7, 2007, the Minister confirmed the
two notices of redetermination.
[7] In making and confirming the redeterminations,
the Minister relied on the same assumptions of fact, as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
(a) The Appellant and Dany Corneau have lived together since
May 31, 2001; (admitted)
(b) On October 12, 2005, they had a daughter, named Lya; (admitted)
(c) The Appellant and Mr. Corneau were common-law partners
throughout the periods in issue. (denied)
[8] The issues are whether the Minister was correct
to revise the Appellant’s Goods and Services Tax Credit and determine that the
overpayments amounted to $294 for the period from July 2003 to April 2004 for
the 2002 taxation year, $342 for the period from July 2004 to April 2005 for
the 2003 taxation year, and $317 for the period from July 2005 to January 2006
for the 2004 taxation year, and whether the Minister was correct to revise the
amount of the Canada Child Tax Benefit and determine that the overpayment
amounted to $636.17 for the period from November 2005 to February 2006 for the
2004 base year.
[9] After being sworn, the Appellant admitted the
facts in paragraphs 7(a) and (b) above and denied the facts in paragraph 7(c),
that is, the fact that she was a common-law partner throughout the periods in
issue.
[10] The Appellant essentially said that she was not
the common-law partner of Dany Corneau. She acknowledged that Dany Corneau
had lived with her since 2000, but as a co-tenant and not a common-law partner.
[11] As corroboration, she produced a lease
(Exhibit A‑1) showing that she was the only tenant named on the
lease starting on May 1, 2000. The Respondent produced four documents: an
application for the Canada Child Tax Benefit (Exhibit I‑1), a change
of marital status (Exhibit I‑2), a second change of marital status
(Exhibit I‑3) and a handwritten document prepared by her
(Exhibit I‑4), which reads as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
Explanation; from May 2001 to December 2004
we were co-tenants;
from December 2004 to date
we have been spouses
baby born October 12, 2005
With respect to the first three
documents, the Appellant essentially said she had made a mistake and relied on
her ignorance or failure to understand the questions.
[12] In this regard, the Appellant had the burden of
proof. To discharge that burden, she must show, on a balance of probabilities,
that what she says is correct.
[13] The facts submitted must be objectively
reasonable and credible, particularly in this regard, when the decision to be
made relates to intimate relationships.
[14] Although the oral explanations are theoretically
possible, they leave some doubt; it is therefore very important to look to
evidence that could confirm, or at least support, evidence that is
questionable, to say the least.
[15] With the exception of the lease, which in itself
is not strictly proof of anything, the Appellant was unable to provide support
for what she said, other than what was said by the child’s father, Dany
Corneau.
[16] On the other hand, however, the Respondent
produced documents that were filled out and signed by the Appellant, and that
confirmed both that the determination was well-founded and that it was likely
that the Appellant and Dany Corneau were common-law partners during the
period in issue.
[17] This is very certainly circumstantial evidence
that is, on the whole, sufficient to confirm that the determinations in issue
were well-founded.
[18] For these reasons, the appeal is
dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 4th day of March 2008.
Tardif
J.
Translation
certified true
on this 14th day of
April 2008.
Susan Deichert, Reviser
Email this Content