|
Docket: 2002-2910(IT)I
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
EVELYNE TREMBLAY,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
___________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on March 13, 2003, at Ottawa, Ontario
|
Before: The
Honourable Judge Lucie Lamarre
|
|
|
|
Appearances:
|
|
|
|
For the
Appellant:
|
The Appellant
herself
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Justine Malone
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the determination of the Child Tax Benefit made
under the Income Tax Act for the months of October 1999 to June 2000
inclusive, with respect to the 1998 base year, and for the months of July 2000
to June 2001 inclusive, with respect to the 1999 base year, is dismissed in
accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa,
Canada, this 17th day of March 2003.
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 20th day of April 2004.
Sophie Debbané,
Revisor
|
Citation: 2003TCC132
|
|
Date: 20031703
|
|
Docket: 2002-2910(IT)I
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
EVELYNE TREMBLAY,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Lamarre,
J.T.C.C.
[1] The appeal from the determination of the Minister of National
Revenue denying the Appellant the Child Tax Benefit for the months of October
1999 to June 2000 inclusive from the 1998 base year, with respect to her son
Jérémie, and for the months of July 2000 to June 2001 inclusive from the 1999
base year, with respect to her two sons Jérémie and Maxime, is dismissed on the
basis that the Appellant did not qualify as the eligible individual under
section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act ("Act"). In order
to qualify as an eligible individual for the Child Tax Benefit, the appellant
had to show that the children in respect of whom she was seeking this benefit
were residing with her during the period in dispute. The appellant admitted
that the children did not reside with her during each of the periods in
question.
[2] The fact that the Appellant had an agreement with her ex‑spouse
that she would retain the Child Tax Benefit even if the children were not
residing with her is not a criteria that I can accept to make changes to the
statute (see also on this issue, Gloria Eremity v. The Queen,
[2003] T.C.J. No. 53 (Q.L.)).
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 17th day of
March 2003.
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 20th day of April 2004.
Sophie Debbané,
Revisor