Thomas Gill v. Minister of National Revenue, [1996] 3 CTC 2861 (Informal Procedure)

Sobier J.T.C.C. (orally): — Thank you. I think I could give judgment from the Bench.

The Appellant, Mr. Thomas Gill, is appealing an assessment by the Minister of National Revenue for the 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation years whereby he claims not to have received education or tuition tax credit in the amounts which he claims would be proper.

The Appellant has made it clear that he objects strenuously to the form of education in the Province of Saskatchewan but he is here appealing a series of assessments under the Income Tax Act made by Revenue Canada, which has nothing to do with the education delivered in the Province of Saskatchewan.

In 1990 the Appellant made no claim for education or tuition tax credit and none was given. From the Reply to Notice of Appeal it appears that in 1991 he claimed $2,067 and was allowed a larger amount of $2,129. No appeal here can reduce an assessment, which I hope you will appreciate. We can’t make you pay more.

In 1992 he claimed a tax credit but in that year the tax credit was an amount equal to 17 per cent of $4,000 which is $680, which according to the provisions of the Income Tax Act is the largest allowable amount for taxpayers such as him. In 1993 the Appellant claimed no tuition tax credit or education tax with respect to this child and none naturally was given.

The Reply in paragraph 20 also indicates that in 1994 the Appellant did not claim any amount of tuition tax credit or education tax credit.

It was pointed out to the Appellant that in appeals to the Tax Court of Canada it is the responsibility, which we call an onus, upon taxpayers to demonstrate that what has been done by the Minister in assessing or reassessing an Appellant’s income tax was incorrect. No evidence was led today which would establish that the Appellant had discharged this onus to show that the Minister’s assessment was incorrect. Indeed in one year the Minister increased the tax credit from that which the Appellant claimed.

Based on the evidence presented to me today, or I might say in fact the lack of evidence presented to me today, the Appellant has not discharged the onus upon him to establish that the assessment is incorrect, and for that reason or for those reasons the appeals are dismissed.

Appeals dismissed.