|
Citation: 2004TCC599
|
|
Date: 20040910
|
|
Docket: 2004-992(IT)I
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
JENNIFER AILEEN PEARCE,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Little J.
A. FACTS:
[1] The Appellant is married and she
and her husband have two children.
[2] When the Appellant filed her
income tax return for the 1999 taxation year she indicated on the
tax return that she was married and was the mother of one
child.
[3] On June 20, 2001 the Minister of
National Revenue (the "Minister") issued a Notice of
Determination. The Notice indicated that the Appellant's
marital status used to calculate the Appellant's Canada Child
Tax Benefit ("CCTB") was single.
[4] The Notice of Determination also
contained the following statement:
Please review the information and notify us if it is not
correct.
[5] The Appellant was initially issued
a CCTB for the 1999 base taxation year on the basis that she was
a single parent and the only income that she had for the base
period was her personal income for that period.
[6] The Appellant was paid a CCTB in
the amount of $1,916.67 for the 1999 base taxation year.
[7] By Notice of Determination issued
on July 18, 2003 the Appellant's entitlement to a CCTB for
the 1999 base taxation year was redetermined by the Minister. The
Notice of Determination was issued by the Minister on the
understanding at that time that the Appellant was married, had
one child and the family income for the base period was
$63,196.00. The Notice also indicated that the Appellant had
received a CCTB overpayment in the amount of $1,505.67 for the
1999 base taxation year.
B. ISSUES TO BE
DETERMINED:
[8] The issues to be determined
are:
(a) whether the Minister has
properly redetermined the Appellant's entitlement to the CCTB
for the 1999 base taxation year;
(b) if the Redetermination by the
Minister was correct, is the Appellant required to repay the
overpayment of CCTB?
C. ANALYSIS:
[9] The Appellant made the following
comments in the Notice of Appeal:
1. When the
CCTB determined my calculation of payment it was based on a
single parents' income provided by the CCRA which was clearly
their mistake as all my tax returns and applications indicate my
marital status as married.
2. This CCRA
mistake has generated another debt owing to HRDC of $1,206.00.
The HRDC put me in a higher bracket because the CCRA made the
error regarding my marital status.
3. To ask for
repayment is unfair because all the money received was spent on
feeding and caring for my son Spencer.
[10] In Dionne v. Canada, [2002]
T.C.J. No. 128 Justice Tardif of the Tax Court of Canada
dealt with a problem where the facts were virtually identical. In
the Dionne case the Minister had concluded that the CCTB
was determined by taking into account Ms. Dionne's
income alone even though she had properly recorded her marital
status on her income tax return. In Dionne the Minister
issued Notices of Redetermination of CCTB for the 1997 and 1998
base taxation years and claimed repayments of $1,536.25 and
$2,232.00 for each of those years respectively. Ms. Dionne
maintained that she had always acted properly, had always been in
good faith and had concealed or omitted absolutely nothing when
filing her returns for the years at issue. Ms. Dionne therefore
concluded that she should not be penalized or have to suffer the
consequences of an administrative error to which she did not
contribute in any way. The Minister admitted the administrative
error but relied on subsection 152(4) of the Income Tax
Act (the "Act"), which reads as follows:
152(4) The Minister may at any time make an assessment,
reassessment or additional assessment of tax for a taxation year,
interest or penalties, if any, payable under this Part by a
taxpayer or notify in writing any person by whom a return of
income for a taxation year has been filed that no tax is payable
for the year, except that an assessment, reassessment or
additional assessment may be made after the taxpayer's normal
reassessment period in respect of the year only if
. . .
[11] After reviewing the facts in
Dionne, Justice Tardif said:
15 First of all, it
should be made clear that, contrary to what she claims, the
appellant is not being penalized in the slightest. The notices of
redetermination of child tax benefit do not penalize her in any
way or deprive her of anything. They merely re-establish, in
accordance with the Income Tax Act ("the Act"), the
amount actually owed to her after considering all the factors
provided for in the Act.
16 Admittedly, the
claim has caused problems and inconvenience. It is unfortunate
that the appellant has to be so inconvenienced because of an
administrative error. However, this is not sufficient to cancel
the claim or allow the appeal. Moreover, the error has benefited
her to some extent since she has received amounts that have not
been claimed because of the time limit.
17 The only basis
for the appellant's appeal is equity. The Tax Court of Canada
has no authority to dispose of an appeal on that basis. Its
jurisdiction is basically to decide whether the notices of
redetermination comply with the relevant provisions of the
Act.
. . .
18 In the case at
bar, the appellant would like her appeal to be allowed solely
because she had nothing to do with the error that was made and
that has caused her much inconvenience. There is no doubt that
the appellant has suffered some prejudice, but that is not the
question. The only questions that I can and must answer are as
follows: were the notices of redetermination correctly issued
under the applicable provisions of the Act, and were they
correctly calculated within the required time? Since the answer
is yes, I must simply dismiss the appeal.
[12] I agree with the conclusion reached by
Justice Tardif in Dionne. I have concluded that the
Minister was correct when he redetermined that the Appellant had
received an overpayment of a CCTB benefit in the amount of
$1,505.67 for the 1999 base taxation year.
[13] I have also concluded that the
Appellant is required to repay the CCTB overpayment in the amount
of $1,505.67.
[14] The appeal is dismissed without
costs.
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 10th day of
September 2004.
Little J.
Email this Content