Date: 20010709
Docket: 2000-4442-IT-I
BETWEEN:
TRACEY ANNE BURNS,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons for Judgment
Hamlyn, D.
[1]
This appeal was heard in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on June 27,
2001.
[2]
In computing income for the 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years,
the Appellant deducted the amount of $8,000, $7,800 and $7,800,
respectively (the "Amounts") as child care expenses.
The Appellant's 1995, 1996 and 1997 income tax returns were
assessed as filed.
[3]
By Notices of Reassessment dated February 10, 1999 the
Minister disallowed the Appellant's child care expenses for
the 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years.
[4]
The issue is whether the Appellant is entitled to claim child
care expenses in the amounts of $8,000, $7,800 and $7,800 in the
1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years.
[5]
In assessing the Appellant, the Minister relied on the following
assumptions: (The Appellant accepted all of the assumptions
except paragraph (f)).
(a)
the Appellant claimed child care expenses in the amounts of
$8,000, $7,800 and $7,800 for the 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation
years, respectively;
(b)
the Appellant was asked to provide receipts to support her claim
for child care expenses for the 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation
years;
(c)
the Appellant provided a receipt issued in the name of
Dorothy Whitty (the "Receipt") for the 1996
taxation year;
(d)
the Receipt was not prepared or signed by Dorothy Whitty;
(e)
the Receipt was prepared and signed by the Appellant;
(f)
the Appellant did not respond to a request from the Minister to
provide receipts or cancelled cheques for child care expenses
claimed on her 1995 and 1997 income tax returns.
[6]
From the Appellant's Notice of Appeal as adopted by her in
the course of her evidence the Appellant stated:
- During my 1996 tax filing, I had a receipt by Dorothy
Whitty, She provided me with her SIN number and I called her from
U & R Tax Office stating that I needed her signature on the
receipt. She gave me permission to sign this receipt which I did
and received my refund.
- She then advised Revenue Canada that she did not babysit for
me and refused responsibility. I was at fault for signing the
receipt and advised Revenue Canada that I was unable to force her
to do so.
- They then proceeded with a review of my income and decided
(very quickly) that three years were under review and all were
reassessed and I was cancelled for those years. I might add that
I had two other individuals providing child care (1995 &
1997) and was able to provide them with official receipts in
which were given to U & R Tax Depot who then provided them to
Revenue Canada during that specific taxation year.[1]
I am a single mother of two young girls and have always worked
hard to provide a good home to them without any child
support.
[7]
This case turns on the Appellant's evidence to show that she
incurred and paid for child care expenses she claimed in her
1995, 1996 and 1997 income tax returns.
[8]
At the outset of her evidence the Appellant conceded her claim
could not be sustained for the 1996 taxation year.
[9]
For the 1995 and 1997 taxation years the Appellant stated she
lost or at least could not find her child care expense records
and receipts. She did say that she filed her receipts with a tax
filing service, U & R Tax Depot, who prepared her return,
filed the return electronically and U & R Depot issued her a
refund cheque within 24 hours.
[10] The
Appellant stated the receipts she filed with the U & R Tax
Depot were not exact, as some of her child care providers would
not issue receipts and others initially promised receipts but
backed out at the year-end. The Appellant also stated that some
receipts would reflect child care services that were not rendered
by the alleged child care provider.
[11] The
Appellant attempted to subpoena the owner of U & R Tax Depot
for trial but was unsuccessful.
ANALYSIS
[12] The
purpose of the child care expense provision is to allow for a
measure of relief to parents who incur child care expenses so
that they are able to work outside the home.
[13] The
Appellant, in an effort to provide child care services to her
children, found it necessary to deal with the provision of these
services in a child care service market climate where some child
care service providers will not give receipts or renege on
providing receipts after promised or where manufactured receipts
can be obtained from individuals who have not rendered
services.
[14] When an
assessment is challenged, the Appellant's obligation is to
bring clear evidence to support her claims. The Appellant was
unable to bring this Court any other evidence, including the
child care providers, possible receipts, cancelled cheques or
other records to support her stated position.
[15] In this
case the Minister has disallowed the claimed child care expenses
because of a lack of documentation by the Appellant.
[16] Several
decisions of the Tax Court of Canada have held a lack of
documentation is not fatal to an appeal, however the Appellant
must establish the expenditures with some precision.[2]
[17] The
problem that exists in this case for 1996 is that the Appellant
has admitted she signed the receipt herself and the Appellant in
her evidence for 1995 and 1997 could not be precise in her
statements in relation to the amounts of the expenditures and she
further stated the amounts claimed were only approximations. This
statement of ambiguity is a formidable obstacle in the
Appellant's case.
[18] The
Appellant has the onus and the burden of proof to show the
Minister's assessment was incorrect. Unfortunately, in this
case the Court is aware that some child care expense expenditures
were actually made. However the Appellant has not been able, with
any precision, clarity or substance, to provide compelling
evidence to support specifically her claims for child care
expenses for the 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years. As such the
Appellant has not met the onus to show the Minister's
assessments are in error.
DECISION
[19] The
appeals are dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 9th day of July 2001.
"D. Hamlyn"
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE
NO.:
2000-4442(IT)I
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
Tracey Anne Burns and
Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF
HEARING:
Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE OF
HEARING:
June 27 and 28, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The
Honourable Judge D. Hamlyn
DATE OF
JUDGMENT:
July 9, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant herself
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Marcel Prevost
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the
Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
2000-4442(IT)I
BETWEEN:
TRACEY ANNE BURNS,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on June 27 and 28, 2001, at
Halifax, Nova Scotia, by
the Honourable Judge D. Hamlyn
Appearances
For the
Appellant:
The Appellant herself
Counsel for the Respondent: Marcel
Prevost
JUDGMENT
The
appeals from the assessments made under the Income Tax Act
for the 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years are dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 9th day of July 2001.
J.T.C.C.
Email this Content