Beaubier
J.T.C.C.:
—
This
matter
was
heard
at
Drumheller,
Alberta,
on
August
6,
1996
pursuant
to
the
Informal
Procedure.
The
Appellant
was
the
only
witness.
The
Appellant
is,
and
at
all
material
times
was,
an
inhabitant
of
a
federal
penitentiary.
He
has
appealed
the
fact
that
pursuant
to
section
122.5
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
he
is
not
entitled
to
the
goods
and
services
tax
credit.
Paragraph
7
of
the
Reply
reads:
In
determining
as
he
did,
the
Minister
made
the
following
assumption
of
fact:
(a)
at
the
end
of
the
1993
taxation
year,
the
Appellant
was
confined
to
a
prison
or
similar
institution
and
had
been
so
confined
for
a
period
of,
or
periods
the
total
of
which
in
the
year
was
more
than,
6
months.
It
was
established
to
be
true.
The
essence
of
the
appeal
is
contained
in
paragraph
A
of
the
Notice
of
Appeal
which
reads:
A.
My
belief
that
section
122.5
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
is
a
discriminatory
practice
against
Canadians
who
are
incarcerated
and
who
are
required
to
pay
the
G.S.T.
while
incarcerated;
and,
The
Appellant
acknowledged
in
argument
that
he
does
not
qualify
for
the
tax
credit
under
section
122.5
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
(“Act”)
or
under
subsection
15(1)
of
the
Canadian
Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms
as
they
have
been
interpreted
by
the
courts.
He
argued
that
he
qualifies
on
the
basis
of
the
Optional
Protocol
To
The
International
Covenant
on
Civil
and
Political
Rights
which
Canada
entered
into
on
August
19,
1976.
In
particular,
he
argues
that
Article
26
applies
to
him
in
this
appeal.
Article
26
of
the
Covenant
reads:
All
persons
are
equal
before
the
law
and
are
entitled
without
any
discrimination
to
the
equal
protection
of
the
law.
In
this
respect,
the
law
shall
prohibit
any
discrimination
and
guarantee
to
all
persons
equal
and
effective
protection
against
discrimination
on
any
ground
such
as
race,
colour,
sex,
language,
religion,
political
or
other
opinion,
national
or
social
origin,
property,
birth
or
other
status.
The
Appellant’s
claim
is
for
the
benefit
of
a
tax
credit.
In
jurisprudential
terms
that
benefit
constitutes
a
privilege,
not
a
right.
Thus,
it
does
not
raise
the
question
of
the
protection
of
the
Appellant
or
his
entitlement
to
equal
protection.
Any
right
which
he
has
to
protection
under
the
Covenant
is
not
being
infringed.
He
is
in
receipt
of
equal
protection
of
the
law.
But
section
122.5
of
the
Act
does
not
grant
him
the
privilege
of
receiving
the
Goods
and
Services
Tax
Credit.
On
this
basis,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content