O’Connor,
J.:—This
is
an
appeal
under
the
Income
War
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.,
1927,
c.
97,
from
an
assessment
for
the
year
1944.
The
wife
of
the
appellant
was
a
resident
of
Canada,
and
had
a
separate
income,
other
than
an
earned
income,
in
excess
of
$660
in
the
taxation
year.
The
appellant
had
three
children
under
18
years
of
age
who
were
wholly
dependent
on
him
for
support
during
the
taxation
year.
The
relevant
parts
of
the
Income
War
Tax
Act
are
parts
of
Rules
1
and
2
of
sec.
1
of
para.
A
of
the
First
Schedule
:—
Section
1.
Normal
Tax
Rule
1.—A
normal
tax
equal
to
seven
per
centum
of
the
income
shall
be
paid
by
every
person
whose
income
during
the
taxation
year
exceeded
$1200
and
who
was
during
that
year:
(a)
a
married
person
who
supported
his
spouse
and
whose
spouse
was
resident
in
any
part
of
His
Majesty’s
dominions
or
in
a
country
contiguous
to
Canada,
or,
residing
elsewhere,
was
a
subject
or
citizen
of
a
country
associated
or
allied
with
Canada
in
the
conduct
of
the
war
which
commenced
in
September
nineteen
hundred
and
thirty-nine,
and
was
prevented
by
reason
of
such
war,
or
prohibited
by
law,
from
entering
or
landing
in
Canada
;
(b)
a
person
with
a
son
or
daughter
wholly
dependent
upon
him
for
support,
if
the
son
or
daughter
was,
during
the
taxation
year,
(i)
under
eighteen
years
of
age;
or
(ii)
eighteen
years
of
age
or
over
and
dependent
by
reason
of
mental
or
physical
infirmity;
or
(iii)
under
twenty-one
years
of
age
and
a
student
at
a
secondary
school,
university
or
other
educational
institution
;
and
resident
in
any
part
of
His
Majesty’s
dominions
or
in
a
country
contiguous
to
Canada,
or,
residing
elsewhere,
was
a
subject
or
citizen
of
a
country
associated
or
allied
with
Canada
in
the
conduct
of
the
war,
which
commenced
in
September
nineteen
hundred
and
thirty-nine,
and
was
prevented
by
reason
of
such
war,
or
prohibited
by
law,
from
entering
or
landing
in
Canada
;
(c)
an
unmarried
person
or
a
married
person
separated
from
his
spouse
who
maintained
a
self-contained
domestic
establishment
and
actually
supported
therein
a
person
wholly
dependent
upon
him
and
connected
with
him
by
blood
relationship,
marriage
or
adoption,
or;
(d)
an
unmarried
minister
or
clergyman
in
charge
of
a
diocese,
parish
or
congregation
who
maintained
a
self-contained
domestic
establishment
and
employed
therein
on
full-time
a
housekeeper
or
servant.
Rule
2.—If,
during
a
taxation
year,
a
married
person
described
by
para.
(a)
of
Rule
1
of
this
section
and
his
spouse
each
had
a
separate
income
in
excess
of
$660.00,
each
shall
be
taxed
under
Rule
3
of
this
section:
Provided
that
a
husband
does
not
lose
his
right
to
be
taxed
under
Rule
1
of
this
section
by
reason
of
his
wife
being
employed
and
receiving
any
earned
income.”
Rule
3
of
Section
2—Graduated
Tax,
provides
that
a
taxpayer
may
deduct
$150
from
the
graduated
tax
otherwise
payable
by
him
if
he
is
a
married
person
or
had
equivalent
status,
as
provided
by
subparas.
(a)
to
(d)
which
are
similar
to
subparas.
(a)
to
(d)
of
Rule
1
of
sec.
1.
Rule
6
of
sec.
2
provides
that
if
a
married
person
described
by
subpara.
(a)
of
Rule
3
of
that
section
and
his
spouse
each
had
a
separate
income
in
excess
of
$660,
neither
of
them
shall
be
entitled
to
the
deduction
from
the
graduated
tax
permitted
by
Rule
3
of
that
section,
provided
further
that
the
husband
does
not
lose
his
right
to
the
deduction
if
the
income
of
the
wife
is
an
earned
income,
but
in
any
case
the
wife
is
treated
as
an
unmarried
person.
The
determination
of
the
question
under
Rules
1
and
2
of
sec.
1
also
determines
the
application
of
subparas.
(i)
and
(12)
of
para,
(d)
of
sec.
7A(1)
which
deal
with
deductions
from
taxes
allowed.
If
the
taxpayer
is
a
person
described
in
(a)
of
Rule
1
of
see.
1
and
described
in
(a)
of
Rule
3
of
sec.
2,
that
is
a
married
person
who
supported
his
spouse,
a
resident
of
Canada,
then
Rule
2
of
sec.
1
and
Rule
6
of
sec.
2
are
applicable,
and
no
further
question
arises.
The
first
question
is
whether
the
taxpayer
is
a
person
described
in
(a)
of
Rule
1,
sec.
1,
and
in
(a)
of
Rule
3,
sec.
2,
i.e.,
one
who
supports
his
wife.
If
he
is
not
a
person
described
in
(a)
Rule
1,
see.
1,
and
(a)
Rule
3,
sec.
2,
then
the
second
question
arises
as
to
whether
or
not
he
is
within
(b)of
Rule
1,
sec.
1,
and
within
(b)
of
Rule
3,
see.
2.
Instead
of
calling
evidence,
counsel
agreed
that
no
evidence
would
be
given
but
agreed
to
the
facts
set
out
in
the
following
admission
of
facts
:—
"‘For
the
purpose
of
this
Matter,
and
without
prejudice
to
the
admission
of
the
facts
contained
in
paragraphs
numbered
1,
2,
3,
4
and
6
of
the
Statement
of
Claim,
it
is
further
admitted
that
in
the
year
1944:
(1)
The
Appellant
and
his
spouse
occupied
the
same
dwelling.
(2)
The
Appellant’s
income
exceeds
the
income
of
his
spouse.
(3)
The
Appellant
and
his
spouse
both
contributed
to
the
maintenance
of
a
common
household
in
such
dwelling,
the
operation
of
which
was
managed
by
the
Appellant’s
spouse.
(4)
The
whole
income
of
the
Appellant’s
spouse
was
expended
for
her
personal
expenses
and
as
a
contribution
to
the
expenses
of
such
common
household.’’
These
facts
do
not
show
the
wife’s
income
or
the
respective
contributions
made
by
each
or
the
total
amount
contributed
to
the
maintenance
of
the
household.
These
facts
agreed
upon
do
not,
in
my
opinion,
establish
that
the
appellant
supported
his
wife
or
that
he
did
not
do
so.
No
finding
of
fact
can
be
made
so
that
the
case
cannot
be
dealt
with
on
the
merits.
It
is
merely
a
question
of
whether
the
onus
is
on
the
appellant
or
on
the
respondent.
Whether
the
taxpayer
has
been
assessed
on
a
correct
basis
or
on
an
incorrect
basis,
the
assessment
is
valid
and
binding
unless
an
appeal
is
taken
and
the
Court
determines
that
the
assessment
has
been
made
on
an
incorrect
basis.
On
the
appeal
then
the
onus
is
on
the
appellant
to
establish
from
the
‘‘facts,
statutory
provisions
and
reasons
which
he
intends
to
submit
to
the
Court
in
support
of
the
appeal”
in
the
language
of
sec.
60(2)
of
the
Act,
that
the
assessment
is
incorrect.
If
such
facts
or
statutory
provisions
and
reasons
are
not
submitted
to
the
Court,
the
assessment
cannot
be
found
to
be
incorrect.
The
appellant
has
failed
to
show
that
the
assessment
was
incorrect,
either
in
fact
or
in
law,
and
the
appeal
must
be
dismissed
with
costs.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content