Mahoney,
J:—The
plaintiff
appeals
a
decision
of
the
Tax
Review
Board
upholding
an
assessment
disallowing
a
deduction
from
his
income
of
maintenance
payments
made
to
his
wife
during
1973.*
The
plaintiff
and
his
wife
separated
in
1972
and,
during
1973,
he
paid
her
$70
per
week
maintenance.
A
written
separation
agreement
providing
for
them
to
live
separate
and
apart
and
providing
for
him
to
pay
her
$95
per
week
was
executed
March
28,
1974.
While
there
is
no
doubt
that
the
plaintiff
and
his
wife
had
previously
agreed
to
live
separate
and
apart
and
that
the
weekly
payments
during
1973
were
made
for
her
maintenance,
it
is
also
clear
that
essential
details
of
the
agreement
were
not
settled
until
shortly
before
the
written
agreement
was
executed
in
1974.
No
written
separation
agreement
existed
during
1973,
nor
were
the
1973
maintenance
payments
called
for
by
a
written
agreement,
all
as
required
by
paragraph
60(b).
For
the
reasons
given
by
the
learned
member
of
the
Tax
Review
Board
in
the
decision
from
which
this
appeal
has
been
taken,
the
appeal
must
be
dismissed
with
costs.
I
cannot
accept
the
plaintiff’s
argument
that
this
Court’s
equitable
jurisdiction
makes
it
competent
to
interpret
the
Income
Tax
Act
in
an
“equitable”
manner
not
open
to
the
Tax
Review
Board.
The
well-
known
principles
to
be
applied
to
the
interpretation
of
a
taxing
statute
bind
both
tribunals
equally.
I
have
no
doubt
that,
if
given
the
discretion
by
Parliament,
the
Board
and
this
Court
could
competently
distinguish
sham
and
genuine
maintenance
payments
made
in
the
absence
of
written
agreements
and
thereby
arrive
at
results
more
equitable
to
taxpayers
such
as
the
plaintiff;
however,
the
discretion
is
Parliament’s
to
give,
not
the
Court’s
to
take.
Email this Content