John
B
Goetz:—This
is
an
appeal
by
the
appellant
in
respect
of
his
1974
taxation
year,
wherein
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
disallowed
deductions
claimed
by
the
appellant
in
the
sum
of
$1,140
for
the
support
of
non-resident
dependants,
namely
his
father
and
mother-in-law
residing
in
India.
Facts
The
appellant
produced
a
cheque
dated
July
22,
1974,
in
the
amount
of
$1,610,
which
cheque
had
been
cashed
by
the
payee
one
Sohan
Singh
Sahota,
who
operated
Richmond
Express
Foreign
Exchange
which
appeared
to
be
an
organization
catering
to
the
needs
of
Indian
residents
in
Canada
in
remitting
funds
to
dependants
in
India.
Richmond
Express
Foreign
Exchange
is
out
of
business
and
although
the
proprietor
Mr
Sahota
is
still
living
in
Canada,
he
could
not
provide
the
appellant
with
a
valid
receipt.
The
father
and
mother-in-law
of
the
appellant
resided
on
a
two-acre
farm
in
India
which
was
farmed
with
the
father’s
parents.
The
appellant
grew
up
on
this
farm
until
he
obtained
his
Grade
XII
education,
having
received
a
scholarship
when
he
passed
Grade
X.
He
then
came
to
Canada
in
1972
and
has
resided
here
since
that
time.
There
was
no
evidence
adduced
although
the
Presiding
Member
of
the
Board
attempted
to
assist
the
appellant
as
best
he
could
but
was
unable
to
elicit
vital
information
to
support
the
position
of
the
appellant
to
claim
a
deduction
under
paragraph
109(1
)(f)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
SC
1970-71-72,
c
63
as
amended.
In
essence
there
was
no
evidence:
(1)
that
the
parents
had
received
any
funds
from
the
appellant;
(2)
there
was
no
evidence
that
the
parents
were
dependent
upon
the
appellant
by
reason
of
mental
or
physical
infirmity;
(3)
it
appeared
to
the
Presiding
Member
that
the
operation
of
a
two-acre
farm
by
the
appellant’s
parents
seemed
to
indicate
that
they
certainly
were
not
in
dire
economic
circumstances
although
the
appellant
indicated
that
the
economic
circumstance
of
his
parents
did
not
compare
to
Canada
which,
of
course,
in
this
case
cannot
be
considered.
Virtually
all
of
the
evidence
adduced
by
the
appellant
was
elicited
by
questions
from
the
Chairman,
and
in
spite
of
this,
the
appellant’s
appeal
fell
sadly
short
of
the
necessary
requirements
to
claim
a
deduction
for
the
support
of
his
dependent
parents.
Paragraph
109(1)(f)
reads
as
follows:
(1)
For
the
purpose
of
computing
the
taxable
income
of
an
individual
for
a
taxation
year,
there
may
be
deducted
from
his
income
for
the
year
such
of
the
following
amounts
as
are
applicable:
(f)
an
amount
expended
by
the
individual
during
the
year
for
the
support
of
a
person
who,
during
the
year,
was
dependent
upon
the
individual
for
support
and
was
(i)
his
parent
or
grandparent
and
dependent
by
reason
of
mental
or
physical
infirmity,
(ii)
his
brother
or
sister
(A)
under
21
years
of
age,
(B)
21
years
of
age
or
over
and
dependent
by
reason
of
mental
or
physical
infirmity,
or
(C)
21
years
of
age
or
over
and
in
full-time
attendance
at
a
school
or
university,
and
exceeding
an
amount
equal
to,
(iii)
if
the
person
has
not
attained
the
age
of
16
years
before
the
end
of
the
year,
$300
less
A
of
the
amount,
if
any,
by
which
the
income
for
the
year
of
the
person
exceeds
$1,000,
and
(iv)
in
any
other
case
$550
less
the
amount,
if
any,
by
which
the
income
for
the
year
of
the
person
exceeds
$1,150;
The
burden
of
proof,
of
course,
is
upon
the
appellant
to
establish
his
right
to
claim
a
deduction.
See
R
W
S
Johnston
v
MNR,
[1948]
CTC
195;
3
DTC
1182.
This
case
clearly
illustrates
the
pitfalls
that
an
appellant,
acting
on
his
own
behalf
in
an
appeal
to
this
Board,
can
fall
far
short
of
establishing
the
necessary
proof
to
establish
the
basis
of
his
appeal.
As
indicated
above,
none
of
the
requirements
of
paragraph
109(1
)(f)
were
met
by
the
evidence
of
the
appellant,
and
the
appeal
is
therefore
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content