|
Docket: 2002-1455(IT)I
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
BRIAN WILLIAM KILOH,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on May 2, 2003 at Kamloops, British
Columbia
|
Before: The Honourable Judge D.W. Beaubier
|
|
|
|
Appearances:
|
|
|
|
For the Appellant:
|
The Appellant himself
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Michael Taylor
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax
Act for the 2000 taxation year is dismissed in
accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, this 13th day of May,
2003.
J.T.C.C.
|
Citation: 2003TCC329
|
|
Date: 20030513
|
|
Docket: 2002-1455(IT)I
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
BRIAN WILLIAM KILOH,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Beaubier, J.T.C.C.
[1] This appeal pursuant to the
Informal Procedure was heard at Kamloops, British Columbia, on
May 2, 2003. The Appellant was the only witness.
[2] Paragraphs 4 to 9 inclusive of the
Reply to the Notice of Appeal read:
4. In
calculating his refund for the 2000 taxation year, the Appellant
claimed employment insurance overpayment of $1,837 (the "EI
Overpayment").
5. The
Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") initially
assessed the Appellant for the 2000 taxation year. The Notice of
Assessment was dated April 26, 2001.
6. In
initially assessing the Appellant for the 2000 taxation year, the
Minister disallowed the EI Overpayment.
7. In so
assessing the Appellant for the 2000 taxation year, the Minister
relied on the following assumptions:
a) during the
2000 taxation year, the Appellant was employed by A Sanford and
Son Enterprises Ltd. and DJ Ventures Ltd. (the
"Employers");
b) in the 2000
taxation year the Appellant earned employment income of
$17,779.00 from the Employers;
c) in the 2000
taxation year the Employers withheld employment insurance
premiums for the Appellant of $426.71 (the "EI
Premiums");
d) in the 2000
taxation year the Appellant received employment insurance
benefits of $11,816 (the "EI Benefits");
e) federal
income tax of $1,837 (the "Tax") was withheld from the
EI Benefits;
f) the
Appellant's EI Premiums for the 2000 taxation year did not
exceed $936 required to claim an overpayment of employment
insurance; and
g) the
Appellant was not entitled to the EI Overpayment.
B. ISSUE
TO BE DECIDED
8. The issue
is whether the Appellant is entitled to the EI Overpayment.
C.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS RELIED ON
9. He relies
on subsection 248(1), paragraphs 60(n) and 153(1)(d.1) and
subparagraph 56(1)(a)(iv) of Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985,
c. 1 (5th Supp.), as amended (the "Act") and
regulation 100(1) of the Income Tax Regulations.
[3] None of the assumptions were
refuted.
[4] In particular, the Appellant
argued the employment insurance benefits should not be subject to
income tax. However, subparagraph 56(1)(a)(iv)
specifically levies income tax on employment insurance
benefits.
[5] The Appellant's second dispute
was because a refund due to him in 1997 was not given to him;
rather, it was applied on income tax which he owed for 1994. That
is the appropriate course in such a case and it corresponds to
the right of set off in ordinary commercial practice.
[6] For these reasons, the appeal is
dismissed.
Signed at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan this 13th day of May,
2003.
J.T.C.C.
Email this Content