|
Citation: 2005TCC206
Date: 20050506
Docket: 2004-2721(IT)I
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
WILLIAM G. ROSA,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(delivered orally from the Bench at
Kamloops, British Columbia, on
January 27, 2005)
[1] This appeal
pursuant to the Informal Procedure was heard at Kamloops, British Columbia on January 17, 2005.
The Appellant was the only witness.
[2] The particulars of
this matter are set out in paragraphs 3 to 11 of the Reply to the Notice of
Appeal which read as follows:
3. In
computing income for the 2002 taxation year, the Appellant deducted moving
expenses in the amount of $3,590.99 comprised of the following amounts (the
“Expenses”):
Mortgage
interest $2,283.26
BC
Hydro –electrical $ 982.73
House
and Fire Insurance $ 325.00
Total $3,590.99
4. The
Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) initially assessed the Appellant
for the 2002 taxation year by Notice dated June 2, 2003 and allowed the
deduction of the Expenses.
5. By
Notice dated October 14, 2003, the Minister reassessed the Appellant’s 2002
taxation year to disallow the Expenses (the “Reassessment”).
6. The
Appellant objected to the Reassessment by serving on the Minister a Notice of
Objection dated November 6, 2003.
7. By
Notice dated March 19, 2004, the Minister confirmed the Reassessment.
8. In
reassessing the Appellant’s 2002 taxation year and in confirming the
Reassessment, the Minister relied on the following assumptions of facts:
a) prior
to moving to Vancouver British Columbia, the Appellant, his wife and their son,
Timothy Rosa, resided at 1160 Scotch Creek Wharf Road, Chase, British Columbia
(the “Old Residence”);
b) the
Appellant and his wife moved from the Old Residence to Vancouver, British Columbia in April 2001;
c) the
Appellant was employed as a resident caretaker of a property located at 2409 West 43rd
Avenue
Vancouver, British
Columbia
(the “Property”) from May 1, 2001 to September 30, 2003;
d) during
his employment as the resident caretaker, the Appellant and his wife resided in
a suite located at the Property (the “New Residence”);
e) the
Appellant’s son continued to reside at the Old Residence throughout the period
that the Appellant was living at the New Residence;
f) the
Appellant paid all the expenses of maintaining the Old Residence;
g) the
Appellant’s insurance policy on the Old Residence did not reflect any changes
after he Appellant’s move to the New Residence;
h) the
Appellant did not take any reasonable steps to sell the Old Residence; and
i) the
Appellant and his spouse moved back to the Old Residence from the New Residence
in 2003 upon their retirement.
9. The
assumptions of fact outlined in paragraphs 8 c), d), e), g), h) and i) were
first made by the Minister in confirming the Reassessment.
B. ISSUE
TO BE DECIDED
10. The
issue is whether the Appellant is entitled to deduct the Expenses in the 2002
taxation year.
C. STATUTORY
PROVISIONS RELIED ON
11. He
relies on section 62 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th
Supp.), as amended (the “Act”).
[3] This appeal must be
dismissed because the Appellant’s son resided in the old residence before the
Appellant moved and when they were away. As a result the appeal must fail as
paragraph 62(3)(g) was not complied with when the Appellant’s son
continued to reside in the old residence.
[4] This Court,
pursuant to the request of the Appellant, has waived the filing fee because of
the circumstances of the Appellant.
[5] In these
circumstances it is recommended that the Appellant apply under the Fairness
Package for the waiver of any interest that might be due on account of any
taxes he may owe.
[6] The Appellant
further raises in his testimony his financial problems in light of his age and
pension circumstances and it is recommended to Revenue Canada
that he be allowed to pay in
instalments as requested in whatever manner the parties determine are
reasonable.
Signed at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, this 6th
day of May 2005.
Beaubier,
J.
Email this Content