Walsh,
J.
[Orally]:—The
appellant
was
invited
to
take
the
stand
and
testify
under
oath
but
preferred
to
argue
the
matter,
what
she
believes
to
be
the
merits
of
her
claim.
In
order
to
constitute
a
record,
the
Court
directed
that
the
transcript
of
the
evidence
before
the
Tax
Appeal
Court
be
made
part
of
this
record.
Unfortunately,
although
the
Court
has
great
sympathy
for
the
appellant,
since
the
amount
of
alimony
awarded
by
the
Court
in
Nova
Scotia
in
1975
was
it?
Ms.
Clare:
It
was
amended
by
an
order
in
1978
so
it's
a
1978—
The
Court:
Amended
in
1978.
Did
that
increase
the
amount
or
what?
Ms.
Clare:
To
$235
a
month.
The
Court:
I
see
and
amended
in
1978
—
Ms.
Faulkner:
It
didn't
increase,
brought
it
down
—
The
Court:
—
of
some
two
hundred
and
what
is
it?
Two
hundred
—
Ms.
Clare:
And
thirty-five
dollars,
My
Lord.
The
Court:
Of
$235
a
month,
which
is
not
indexed,
does
not
represent
a
very
substantial
sum
at
today’s
prices.
However,
this
Court
can
do
nothing
to
amend
that
amount,
nor
can
it
fail
to
apply
paragraph
56(1)(b)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
Unfortunately,
the
appellant's
argument
that
the
Income
Tax
Act
is
unfair
and
discriminatory
in
that
the
ex-husband
can
deduct
the
amounts
paid
by
virtue
of
the
said
judgment
and
probably
receive
a
higher
tax
benefit
as
a
result
thereof.
Whereas
the
ex-wife
who
may
be
in
dire
need,
has
to
pay
income
tax
on
these
periodic
payments
received.
She
also
argues
that
she
is
unable
to
claim
the
$1,000
deduction
from
pensionable
income
for
the
years
in
question,
although
the
income
payments
are
made
out
of
the
ex-husband's
pension.
The
source
of
the
payments
is
immaterial
and
it
is
not
her
pension
from
which
the
payments,
the
periodic
payments
are
received
in
income.
Her
appeal
must
therefore
be
dismissed
but
under
the
circumstances,
the
Crown
does
not
seek
costs.
The
designation
of
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
as
respondent
in
the
statement
of
claim,
must
be
amended
to
replace
this
by
Her
Majesty
the
Queen
as
the
respondent.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content