Langlois v. The Queen, docket 2000-996-IT-I (Informal Procedure)

[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]

98-706(IT)I

2000-996(IT)I

BETWEEN:

EDDY R. LANGLOIS,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

Appeals heard on July 14, 2000, at Sudbury, Ontario, by

the Honourable Associate Chief Judge D.G.H. Bowman

Appearances

For the Appellant:                      The Appellant himself

Counsel for the Respondent:      Cathy Chalifour

JUDGMENT

          The appeals from the assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the 1995 and 1996 taxation years are dismissed.

Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 3rd day of August 2000.

A.C.J.

Translation certified true

on this 5^th day of November 2003.

Sophie Debbané, Revisor

[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]

Date: 20000803

Docket: 98-706(IT)I

2000-996(IT)I

BETWEEN:

EDDY R. LANGLOIS,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Bowman, A.C.J.

[1]      These appeals are brought against assessments concerning the appellant's 1995 and 1996 taxation years. The issue is whether the appellant is entitled to deduct the amounts of $6,600 in 1995 and of $4,500 in 1996 that were paid as alimony or other allowance under paragraph 60(b) of the Income Tax Act ("Act").

[2]      During the years at issue, subsection 60(b) of the Act read:

(b)        an amount paid by the taxpayer in the year as alimony or other allowance payable on a periodic basis for the maintenance of the recipient, children of the recipient or both the recipient and the children, if the taxpayer, because of the breakdown of the taxpayer's marriage, was living separate and apart from the spouse or former spouse to whom the taxpayer was required to make the payment at the time the payment was made and throughout the remainder of the year and the amount was paid under a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or under a written agreement;

[3]      It is important to note that this paragraph requires that payments be payable on a periodic basis and that they be paid under a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal or under a written agreement.

[4]      It is clear that two orders were issued by the Superior Court of Ontario- one in December 1996 and the other in 1997. However, neither ordered the payment of alimony or other allowance in respect of the 1995 taxation year or in respect of the period in 1996 preceding December 7, 1996.

[5]      The Minister allowed the deduction of $1,500 paid in December 1996 pursuant to the order of December 5, 1996.

[6]      The only remaining issue is whether there was a written agreement under which the payments were made.

[7]      In his testimony, the appellant stated that he had prepared an agreement that was signed by him and his wife, a copy of which he gave to his wife. He said that a break-in had taken place at his residence and that his copy of the agreement was in a safe that had been stolen.

[8]      I accept the appellant's statement that there was a theft at his residence, but I am completely in the dark as to the terms and conditions of the alleged agreement.

[9]      The appeals are therefore dismissed.

Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 3rd day of August 2000.

A.C.J.

Translation certified true

on this 5^th day of November 2003.

Sophie Debbané, Revisor