Roland
St-Onge
(orally:
February
13,
1978):—The
appeal
of
Mr
Gerhard
Hausmann
came
before
me
on
February
13,
1978,
at
the
City
of
Vancouver,
British
Columbia.
It
has
to
deal
with
the
separation
agreement
between
his
estranged
wife
and
himself.
The
undisputed
facts
are
as
follows,
and
I
quote
from
the
Reply
to
the
Notice
of
Appeal:
2.
In
1973,
the
Appellant
transferred
his
interest
in
his
matrimonial
home
to
his
wife,
Patricia
Hausmann,
who
became
the
sole
owner
and
mortgagor
of
the
matrimonial
home.
3.
The
Appellant
and
his
wife
entered
into
a
Separation
Agreement
dated
June
1,
1974.
4.
The
Separation
Agreeement
required
the
Appellant,
inter
alia,
to:
(a)
make.
all
monthly
mortgage
payments
with
respect
to
the
matrimonial
home;
(b)
maintain
medical
insurance
coverage
for
his
wife
and
children
and
pay
all
reasonable
dental
accounts
on
behalf
of
his
wife
and
children;
(c)
pay
to
his
wife
maintenance
in
the
amount
of
$175
per
week
for,
his
wife
and
children.
5.
By
an
amended
Return
dated
December
15,
1975,
the
Appellant
duly
reported
his
income
for
1974,
claiming,
inter
alia,
a
deduction
for
alimony
payments
in
the
amount
of
$12,119.23,
consisting
of
$5,250
in
weekly
payments
made
directly
to
his
wife,
$6,224.73
in
mortgage
payments,
and
$644.50
paid
to
cover
medical
insurance
premiums
and
dental
bills.
6.
The
Respondent
assessed
the
Appellant
disallowing
that
part
of
the
deduction
for
alimony
payments
consisting
of
mortgage,
medical
and
dental
payments.
9.
The
Respondent
submits
that
section
60.1
of
the
Act
must
be
read
in
conjunction
with
paragraph
60(b).
Therefore,
to
be
deductible
under
section
60.1
payments
to
third
parties
must
be
an
“allowance”
within
the
meaning
of
paragraph
60(b).
The
Respondent
submits
that
the
mortgage
payments
and
the
medical
and
dental
payments
were
not
a
sum
allowed
to
the
Appellant’s
wife
to
be
applied
in
her
discretion
to
certain
kinds
of
expenses
and
accordingly
were
not
an
“allowance”
as
required
by
paragraph
60(b).
As
may
be
seen,
the
mortgage
payments
cannot
be
regarded
as
alimony
payments,
especially
since
the
decision
of
the
Federal
Court
of
Appeal
in
Attorney-General
of
Canada
v
Weaver,
[1975]
CTC
646;
75
DTC
5462.
In
that
decision,
a
definition
of
alimony
was
given
as
follows:
an
allowance,
in
our
view
is
a
limited
pre-determined
sum
of
money
paid
to
enable
the
recipient
to
provide
for
certain
kinds
of
expense;
its
amount
is
determined
in
advance
and,
once
paid,
it
is
at
the
complete
disposition
of
the
recipient
who
is
not
required
to
account
for
it.
A
payment
in
satisfaction
of
an
obligation
to
indemify
or
reimburse
some
one
or
to
defray
his
or
her
actual
expense
is
not
an
allowance;
it
is
not
a
sum
allowed
to
the
recipient
to
be
applied
in
his
or
her
discretion
to
certain
kinds
of
expense.
Furthermore,
it
is
obvious
that
mortgage
payments,
although.
paid
periodically,
cannot
be
regarded
as
alimony
since
the
main
purpose
thereof
is
to
increase
the
assets
of
the
individual
being
a
payment
to
acquire
an
asset.
For
these
reasons,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content