J
B
Goetz:—The
appeal
of
Abdulmalik
Karimi
was
heard
at
Toronto,
Ontario,
on
March
20,
1979,
and
is
from
a
reassessment
of
the
Minister
dated
June
28,
1977,
which
assessment
disallowed
the
deduction
of
$1,700
sought
to
be
claimed
by
the
appellant
as
payment
to
dependent
relatives
in
India.
The
issue
is
whether
the
appellant
is
entitled
to
an
exemption
of
$1,700
in
his
1976
taxation
year
for
the
support
of
non-resident
dependents.
Facts
The
appellant
came
to
Canada
in
February
1976
and
reported
on
his
1976
income
tax
return
a
total
income
of
$7,748,
for
that
portion
of
the
year
that
he
was
resident
in
Canada.
The
deduction
sought
by
the
appellant
related
to
$720
for
his
father,
Razzak
Karimi,
$720
for
his
mother,
Moorbanu
Karimi,
and
$260
for
his
sister,
Nassim
Karimi.
The
father
had
a
die-cutting
press
business
but
in
the
year
1976,
according
to
a
letter
filed,
he
was
required
to
have
bed
rest
for
two
months.
The
appellant
contends
that
as
a
result
the
business
had
to
close
down
for
two
months,
although
the
father
had
three
employees
with
him
in
his
business.
I
find
it
difficult
to
find
that
(1)
this
would
result
in
a
closure
and
loss
of
business;
(2)
that
the
bed
rest
for
two
months
would
come
under
the
term
of
physical
infirmity
as
set
out
in
paragraph
109(1
)(f)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
SC
1970-71-72,
c
63,
and
amendments
thereto.
The
total
of
$1,700
was
sent
directly
payable
to
the
order
of
his
father.
It
was
in
US
funds,
which
he
stated,
would
balance
with
16,800
rupees.
The
appellant
stated
that
his
father’s
income,
during
the
year
1975,
was
450
rupees
per
month.
Finding
of
Facts
The
question
to
be
determined
here
is
whether
the
father,
mother
and
sister
were
dependants
under
the
provisions
of
section
109(1
)(f)
of
the
said
Act,
which
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,
not
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
1/2
of
the
amount,
if
any,
by
which
the
income
for
the
year
of
the
person
exceeds
$1,100,
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;
I
find
that
the
two
months’
bed
rest
does
not
come
within
the
meaning
of
“physical
infirmity”
referred
to
in
paragraph
109(1)(f)(i)
and
therefore
that
the
father
was
not
a
dependant
as
defined
in
the
Act.
further,
there
is
no
evidence
of
any
infirmity
on
the
part
of
Moorbanu
Karimi,
the
appellant’s
mother
and
I
find
that
she
was
not
a
dependant.
It
follows
therefore
that
if
the
parents
of
Nassim
Karimi
were
not
dependent
upon
the
appellant,
that
ipso
facto
the
appellant’s
sister
cannot
be
termed
a
dependant.
See
Nanik
G
Kripalani
v
MNR,
[1978]
CTC
2247;
78
DTC
1203.
For
the
above
reasons,
I
dismiss
the
appeal.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content