Roland
St-Onge
[TRANSLATION]:—The
appeal
by
Me
Germain
Canuel,
attorney,
was
heard
on
March
4,
1981
in
the
city
of
Montreal,
Quebec.
The
question
is
whether
the
appellant
may
deduct
more
than
$200
a
month
as
alimony
for
his
1976
and
1977
taxation
years.
The
facts
of
this
appeal
are
well
stated
in
paragraphs
6,
8,
9
and
10
of
the
reply
to
the
notice
of
appeal,
and
they
read
as
follows:
6.
In
assessing
the
appellant
for
the
1976
and
1977
taxation
years,
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
relied,
inter
alia,
on
the
following
facts:
(a)
on
December
19,
1975
the
Superior
Court
of
Quebec
handed
down
a
judgment
varying
a
decree
nisi
of
divorce
already
made
between
the
appellant
and
his
ex-wife;
(b)
the
decree
of
December
19,1975
contained,
inter
alia,
the
following
clause:
“5.
Petitioner
shall
pay
for
his
children
monthly
alimony
of
not
less
than
$200,
taking
into
account
their
current
situation”
(c)
the
appellant
paid
the
sum
of
$2,400
to
his
ex-wife
for
each
of
the
1976
and
1977
taxation
years;
(d)
in
the
1976
and
1977
taxation
years,
the
appellant
lived
apart
from
his
ex-
wife.
8.
The
respondent
submits
that
in
the
1976
and
1977
taxation
years,
the
only
amounts
paid
by
the
appellant
to
his
ex-wife
pursuant
to
the
decree
of
December
19,
1975
were
$200
a
month;
9.
The
respondent
submits
that
any
amount
over
$200
a
month
that
may
have
been
paid
by
the
appellant
to
his
ex-wife
in
the
1976
and
1977
taxation
years
did
not
constitute
alimony
or
other
allowance
within
the
meaning
of
paragraphs
60(b)
and
(c)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act;
10.
The
respondent
submits
that
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
properly
refused
the
deductions
of
$1,925
in
1976
and
$1,729
in
1977,
claimed
by
the
appellant
as
alimony;
At
the
hearing
the
foregoing
paragraphs
were
all
proven,
and
the
amount
greater
than
$200
a
month
which
the
appellant
sought
to
deduct
from
his
income
for
the
years
in
question
does
not
constitute
alimony
or
other
allowance
within
the
meaning
of
paragraphs
60(b)
and
(c)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
SC
1970-71-72,
c
63,
as
amended.
The
appellant,
who
pleaded
his
own
case
and
who
obtained
a
two-month
delay
in
order
to
provide
the
Board
with
certain
decisions
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada,
did
not
do
this
within
the
time
allowed.
Further,
the
Board
is
of
the
opinion,
on
the
evidence
presented
by
the
appellant,
that
his
appeal
is
without
basis
in
law,
since
it
seeks
to
deduct
an
amount
greater
than
that
set
by
the
decree.
The
appeal
is
accordingly
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content