Docket: 2004-95(IT)I
BETWEEN:
BARBARA ROBSON,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal
heard on August 17, 2004, at Hamilton, Ontario
Before: The Honourable
Justice Gerald J. Rip
Appearances:
|
For the Appellant:
|
The
Appellant herself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Craig Maw
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the
assessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 2001 taxation year is
allowed, without costs, and the matter is referred back to the Minister of
National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment on the basis that the
appellant is entitled to a reduction of net federal income tax owing in the amount
of $1,060.91 for 2001.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada,
this 21st day of April
2005.
Gerald J. Rip
Citation: 2005TCC287
Date: 20050421
Docket: 2004-95(IT)I
BETWEEN:
BARBARA ROBSON,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Rip J.
[1] Barbara Robson has
appealed her income tax assessment for 2001 in which the Minister of
National Revenue included in her income the amount of $24,205 she received from
Manulife Financial as a result of her claim under an insurance policy with
Manulife.
[2] Ms. Robson had been
employed by Hamilton Health Sciences (HHS) and Manulife had been the long‑term
disability carrier for employees of HHS. At all relevant times HHS made all the
contributions to the long‑term disability plan for the benefit of its
employees, including Ms. Robson.
[3] Ms. Robson was
injured in an automobile accident in August 1996. She applied under the policy,
among other things, for income replacement benefits during her periods of
disability. The claims were refused. She sued Manulife in the Ontario Court
(General Division) for income replacement benefits, medical and rehabilitation
expenses, mediated expenses, among other claims. Eventually the litigation was
settled and Ms. Robson received $24,205.01 from Manulife.
[4] In assessing, the
Minister reviewed the form T4A, Summary of Pension, Retirement Annuity and Other
Income, issued by Manulife and noted that the amount of $24,205 was paid to Ms.
Robson in 2001 and that she did not include the amount of $24,205 in her tax
return for 2001. The Minister's position is that the amount of $24,205 should
be properly included in Ms. Robson's income.
[5] The trial of this
appeal was heard on August 17, 2004. After hearing submissions of the parties,
I asked the parties for further information to determine whether a lesser
amount may be included in Ms. Robson's income in accordance with paragraph
6(1)(f) of the Income Tax Act or whether there was information
not before the Minister or me that could be obtained after trial and assist the
appellant.
[6] I had also held my
decision in abeyance pending the Supreme Court of Canada judgment in Tsiaprailis
v. Canada,
which was rendered on February 25, 2005. A copy of the reasons for
judgment was sent to Ms. Robson for her review.
[7] I agree with the view
of respondent's counsel that paragraph 6(1)(f) of the Act does
not assist the appellant since, among other things, she did not personally
contribute to the long‑term disability plan either in 2001, when she
received the money, or in previous years.
[8] I also agree that
based on Tsiaprailis, the amount of $24,205 was an amount payable on a
periodic basis. The Statement of Claim against Manulife is based on the
insurer's refusal to pay the benefits due Ms. Robson under the policy but
nowhere - not the Statement of Claim, not the reporting letter of
Ms. Robson's lawyer - is there a description of what portion of the payment
was for damages and what portion was for unpaid benefits under the policy.
Essentially, Ms. Robson received close to the $27,139.83 she would have
received from Manulife had her original claim been accepted.
[9] After the trial, Ms.
Robson submitted to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency ("CCRA") a
form T1198, signed by the Manager of Manulife dated October 6, 2004
to determine whether the appellant is entitled to a lump sum deduction
calculated with reference to sections 110.2 and 120.31 of the Act in including
the amount of $24,205 received by the appellant in 2001 from Manulife. Counsel
has advised that CCRA prepared the calculation and the respondent now agrees
that the appeal should be allowed on the basis that the appellant is entitled
to a reduction of net federal income tax owing in the amount of $1,060.91 for
her 2001 taxation year pursuant to sections 110.2 and 120.31 of the Act.
[10] Since receiving this
advice from respondent's counsel the trial coordinator of the Tax Court of
Canada has written Ms. Robson asking if she agrees with the calculation.
[11] By fax dated April 19,
2005 Mrs. Robson advised the Court that she wished to withdraw her appeal to
the Court. A withdrawal in these circumstances would be contrary to her
interests, bearing in mind that the respondent agrees that she is entitled to a
reduction of federal tax for 2001 of $1,060.91. I, therefore, do not accept
Mrs. Robson's withdrawal.
[12] The appeal will be
allowed, without costs, to reduce the amount of federal income tax owing by the
appellant in the amount of $1,060.91 for 2001.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 21st day of April 2005.
Gerald J. Rip
CITATION: 2005TCC287
COURT FILE NO.: 2004-95(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: Barbara Robson v. Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Hamilton,
Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: August 17, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT BY: Gerald
J. Rip
DATE OF JUDGMENT: April 21, 2005
APPEARANCES:
|
For the
Appellant:
|
The Appellant herself
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Craig Maw
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent: John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa,
Ontario
Email this Content