TAX
COURT OF CANADA
INCOME
TAX ACT
2006-122(IT)I
BETWEEN: YVES
A. PROULX
Appellant
-and-
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
[OFFICIAL
ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Held before the
Honourable Justice PAUL BÉDARD, Tax Court of Canada, on the premises of
the Courts Administration Service at Montréal, Quebec, on June 27, 2006
--------------------
JUDGMENT
APPEARANCES:
YVES A.
PROULX
Representing
himself
BENOîT
MANDEVILLE
Counsel for the
Respondent
Clerk/Technician:
Claude Lefebvre
RIOPEL,
GAGNON, LAROSE & ASSOCIÉS
215
Saint-Jacques Street
Suite
328
Montréal,
Quebec H2Y 1M6
IT-4843 JEAN
LAROSE, O.S.
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE BÉDARD: Upon filing his
income tax return for the 2004 taxation year, the Appellant claimed a deduction
of $2,506 on account of legal fees related to a court motion by which he sought
to reduce the amount of his support payments to his ex-wife. By notice of
assessment dated May 27, 2005, the Minister disallowed that claim in
its entirety.
The Appellant has appealed from the Minister's decision. Thus, the
only issue to be decided is whether the $2,506 in legal fees incurred by the
Appellant in contesting the amount of his support payments to his ex-wife, or
ex-spouse, are deductible from his taxable income for the 2004 taxation year.
Legal fees incurred in negotiating or suing for a reduction in
support are not deductible because the success of such an endeavour does not
produce income from a business or property. Section 8 contains no provision
permitting the deduction of such expenses from employment income (assuming that
employment income exists) and paragraphs 60(o) and 60(o.1) do not permit the
deduction of such legal fees either. In fact, it is my opinion that the Act
contains no provision permitting such a deduction.
As for the constitutional argument, I cannot accept it because
you did not notify the Attorneys General of the provinces and of Canada within the requisite time limits. In
any event, even if s. 18(1)(a) could result in differential treatment, I am of
the opinion that such a distinction would not be discriminatory.
Basically, if you feel that society should change, I believe that
your pressure would more properly be brought to bear on Parliament. As for me,
my hands are tied, and I do not see how I could help you. I can find no basis
on which you could be permitted to deduct such expenses. There is no case law
in support of your position, and I can find nothing in the Act that would
permit the deduction of such expenses. For these reasons, the appeal is
dismissed.
I understand that you had a very difficult and painful experience.
However, I am not Parliament. I would be overstepping my role if I issued a
judgment based solely on the sympathy that you elicit, and it would essentially
be pointless, because the Minister would appeal from my decision the following
day and we would all have wasted our time. I cannot rule based on equity or on
the sympathy that people's circumstances elicit. I understand that your
experience has been painful.
Good day, then.
----------------------
Translation certified true
on this 20th day of July 2007.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Email this Content