Date:
20001109
Docket:
98-2-OAS
BETWEEN:
PAUL
CHUBAK,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER
OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA,
Respondent.
Reasons
for Decision and Decision
Beaubier,
J.T.C.C.
[1]
This appeal was heard at Kelowna, British Columbia on October 2,
2000. The Appellant was the only witness. The following are
pertinent facts to this:
1.
July 22, 1997, the Appellant wrote the following letter
(constituting an appeal) to the Office of the Commissioner of
Review Tribunals. It was filed as Exhibit A-1, and
reads:
4615 20th Street
Vernon,B,C,
V1T 4E6
250-549-8433
S.I.N. ("omitted")
Income
Security Programs
P.O. Box
1177
Victoria,
B.C.
V8W
2V2
To whom it
may concern:
I am
writing this letter to appeal your decision that I am no longer
eligible to receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
In 1996 I
withdrew $23,000.00 from an RRSP. I used $11,000.00 to pay down
my mortgage and the remainder to do renovations. We now find
ourselves with a very low monthly income. I receive the OAS and
$624.49 CPP. My wife has no income. I did not realize that when I
cashed in my RRSP I would lose my Supplement.
My
expenses are as
follows:
Property Taxes $ 43.16
Insurance
$ 25.00
Hydro
$ 40.75
Heating
$ 84.94
Mortgage
$542.48
Dental
$ 35.50
Auto Insurance $ 34.41
Water, Sewer etc. $ 29.60
Total
$835.85
These are
only my absolute expenses, they do not include food, travel and
misc. expenses. As my monthly income is $1027.00 this does not
leave much left over.
I hope
that after reviewing my case you will consider my
appeal.
Truly yours,
Paul Chuback
"P. Chuback"
2.
May 25, 1998, the Registrar of the Tax Court of Canada received a
reference from the Commissioner pursuant to subsection 28(2) of
the Old Age Security Act and enclosing the documents
required under section 5 of the Review Tribunal's Rules of
Procedure.
[2]
Subsection 28(3) of the Old Age Security Act
("OAS") requires that a determination as to income from
a source shall be referred to the Tax Court of Canada for
decision for the purposes of the appeal under the Old Age
Security Act.
[3]
The decision to be made by the Tax Court of Canada is whether the
$23,000 which the Appellant withdrew from his RRSP in 1996
constituted income under the Income Tax Act.
[4]
The said $23,000 is income to the Appellant in 1996 under the
Income Tax Act, and
1.
Paragraph 56(1)(h) of the Income Tax Act states
that amounts required by section 46 to be included in income
shall be included in income in that year, and
2.
Section 146 makes this withdrawal from the Appellant's RRSP
income for that year.
That is so
decided.
Signed at
Ottawa, Canada this 9th day of November,
2000.
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE
NO.:
98-2(OAS)
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
Paul Chubak v. Minister of Human
Resources Development Canada
PLACE OF
HEARING:
Kelowna, British Columbia
DATE OF
HEARING:
October 2, 2000
REASONS FOR
DECISION BY: The
Honourable Judge D. W.
Beaubier
DATE OF
DECISION:
November 9,
2000
APPEARANCES:
For the
Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for
the
Respondent:
Victor Avery Caux
COUNSEL OF
RECORD:
For the
Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada