Date:
19990623
Docket:
98-1709-IT-I
BETWEEN:
STEVEN W.
NELSON,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY
THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons
for Judgment
Brulé, J.T.C.C.
[1]
This is an appeal by Steven W. Nelson, the appellant. He has been
denied by Revenue Canada a deduction for the equivalent to spouse
for the 1996 taxation year.
Facts
[2]
These are not in dispute. The appellant and his former wife were
divorced with each party taking into custody one of two children.
The appellant was denied equal treatment as was received by the
wife for the one child in his custody under subsection 118(5) of
the Income Tax Act. He is claiming
discrimination.
Analysis
[3]
While the appellant is claiming discrimination he does not seem
to be onside with the legislation. The Parliament of Canada, it
was said by Sopinka J. of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case
of Egan and Nesbit and Her Majesty the Queen, that
"the proper balance was struck by Parliament in providing
financial assistance to those who were shown to be in the
greatest need of assistance". The present case, it was
argued by the appellant, infringes subsection 15(1) of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but Cory, J. of
the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of The Queen et al. v.
Thibaudeau, 95 DTC 5273, indicated that the
appellant's position, while it may be discriminating, was
however saved under section 1 of the Charter. In addition
to the Egan case, above, the Court was made aware of the
case of Thibaudeau (supra) which in its decision
(not unanimous) involved roughly the same facts. The Court found
that this was not discriminating and dismissed the
appeal.
[4]
In addition to pleading there was no discrimination in this case,
counsel for the respondent offered to the Court the following
cases: Schachtschneider v. The Queen, 93 DTC 5298 and
Werring v. The Queen, 97 DTC 3290.
[5]
In the present case this Court held that the appellant was not
entitled to a personal credit and a deduction under section 118
of the Income Tax Act.
[6]
The Tax Court follows the rule of the law and cannot help the
appellant in a plea of discrimination. The place to go is to the
Parliament of Canada to seek an amendment to the law. In the
meantime the appeal is dismissed.
Signed at
Ottawa, Canada, this 23rd day of June 1999.
J.T.C.C.COURT
FILE
NO.:
98-1709(IT)I
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
Steven W. Nelson & Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF
HEARING:
Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE OF
HEARING:
May 18, 1999
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT BY: the Honourable Judge J.A.
Brulé
DATE OF
JUDGMENT:
June 23, 1999
APPEARANCES:
For the
Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for
the
Respondent:
C. Ward
COUNSEL OF
RECORD:
For the
Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
98-1709(IT)I
BETWEEN:
STEVEN W.
NELSON,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY
THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard
on May 18, 1999, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, by
the
Honourable Judge J.A. Brulé
Appearances
For the
Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for
the
Respondent:
C. Ward
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax
Act for the 1996 taxation year is dismissed in accordance
with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at
Ottawa, Canada, this 23rd day of June 1999.
J.T.C.C.
Email this Content