1.
With
respect
to
the
allegations
of
facts
contained
in
paragraph
1
of
the
Notice
of
Appeal:
(a)
he
admits
that
the
Appellant
entered
into
an
agreement
with
Francis
Rose
Cross
(“Cross”)
for
the
purpose
of
child
support
for
two
children,
Dana
Leah
Cross,
born
May
10,
1982
and
Matthew
John
Kelly
Cross,
born
June
25,
1983;
(b)
he
has
no
knowledge
of,
and
puts
in
issue
the
remaining
allegations
of
fact
contained
in
this
paragraph.
2.
With
respect
to
the
allegations
of
facts
contained
in
paragraph
2
of
the
Notice
of
Appeal:
(a)
he
admits
that
Cross
did
report
the
support
payments
for
the
applicable
years
as
income;
(b)
he
has
no
knowledge
of,
and
puts
in
issue
the
remaining
allegations
of
fat
contained
in
this
paragraph.
3.
With
respect
to
the
allegations
of
fact
contained
in
paragraph
3
of
the
Notice
of
Appeal:
(a)
he
admits
that
the
Honourable
Mr.
Justice
A.H.
Wachowich,
Law
Courts
Building,
Edmonton,
Alberta
on
August
29,1994
ordered
that
(i)
the
matters
be
adjourned
sine
die,
and
(ii)
all
payments
made
to
date
by
the
Appellant
to
Cross,
with
the
exception
of
$500.00
paid
pursuant
to
the
Order
of
Justice
W.J.
Girgulis
on
April
20,
1994
which
has
not
been
characterized
yet,
are
deemed
to
be
child
support
payments
paid
by
Order
of
the
Court;
(b)
he
has
no
knowledge
of,
and
puts
in
issue
the
remaining
allegations
contained
in
this
paragraph.
4.
In
computing
income
for
the
1990,
1991
and
1992
taxation
years,
the
Appellant
deducted
the
amounts
of
$5,750.00,
$6,000.00
and
$6,850.00
respectively,
(the
‘Amounts’),
as
alimony
or
maintenance
payments.
5.
The
dates
of
mailing
the
notice
of
original
assessment
for
the
1990,
1991
and
1992
taxation
years
were
May
15,
1991,
April
21,
1992
and
May
12,
1993,
respectively.
6.
In
reassessing
the
Appellant
for
the
1990,
1991
and
1992
taxation
years
on
May
27,
1994,
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(‘the
Minister’)
disallowed
the
Amounts.
7.
In
so
reassessing
the
Appellant,
the
Minister
made
the
following
assumptions
of
fact:
(a)
the
facts
admitted
above;
(b)
the
Appellant
and
Cross
entered
into
an
Agreement
dated
March
1989
where
the
Appellant
was
to
pay
Cross
the
sum
of
$250.00
per
month
per
child
for
the
maintenance
and
support
of
the
two
children;
(c)
the
Agreement
referred
to
in
paragraph
7(b)
above
is
not
an
order
made
by
a
competent
tribunal
in
accordance
with
the
laws
of
a
province;
(d)
the
Amounts
claimed
were
not
amounts
paid
by
the
Appellant
pursuant
to
an
order
made
by
a
competent
tribunal
in
accordance
with
the
laws
of
a
province.
The
payments
made
by
the
Appellant
in
1991
and
1992
are
not
covered
by
the
order
of
Mr.
Justice
Wachowich
because
subsection
60.1(3)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
only
allows
that
order
to
validate
payments
made
in
1993
and
1994.
The
agreement
in
writing
between
the
parties
was
made
in
March
1989
pursuant
to
legal
advice.
It
is
not
sufficient
to
allow
the
deduction
claimed
where
the
parties
were
not
the
subject
of
a
marriage
ceremony.
This
is
an
unfortunate
case.
The
Appellant
was
incorrectly
advised
my
officers
of
Revenue
Canada
and
by
lawyers.
He
made
his
payments
before
and
after
the
written
agreement,
the
Court
order
and
the
reassessments.
He
has
recently
increased
them.
The
recipient
reported
them
as
income.
Everything
before
the
Court
indicates
honest
and,
compared
to
most
men
in
his
position,
exemplary
behaviour.
The
only
thing
wrong
with
his
conduct
is
that
it
did
not
comply
with
the
exact
words
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
which
no
one
appears
to
have
understood
as
it
related
to
his
situation.
In
these
circumstances,
the
appeal
for
1990
is
allowed
and
that
year
is
remitted
to
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
for
reconsideration
and
reassessment.
The
appeals
for
1991
and
1992
are
dismissed
with
a
recommendation
that
the
fairness
package
be
invoked
to
relieve
the
Appellant
of
any
levy
for
interest
on
account
of
the
income
tax
owed.
Email this Content