Christie A.C.J.T.C.:
These appeals are governed by the Informal Procedure prescribed under section 18 and following sections of the Tax Court of Canada Act. The years under review are 1994 and 1995.
The issues to be determined are whether the appellant is entitled to deduct $9,788.00 in computing his income for 1994 and to deduct $7,223.00 for the same purpose in respect of 1995. It is alleged that these were alimony or maintenance payments.[1]
Beaubier T.C.J.: (L6/R4294/T0/BT0) test_marked_paragraph_end (2916) 0.775 0519_7193_7325
This appeal pursuant to the Informal Procedure was heard at Edmonton, Alberta on August 11, 1998. The Appellant was the only witness.
The Appellant has appealled the disallowance of her claim for the disability tax credit for 1995.
The applicable portions of the Income Tax Act respecting this appeal read:
118.3 (1) (1) Credit for mental or physical impairment.
Where
Bell T.C.J.:
The issue is whether employment income received by the Appellant in 1991, 1992 and 1993 is exempt from taxation pursuant to paragraph 81(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (“Act’) and section 87 of the Indian Act. The term “Appellant” in these Reasons shall refer to each of Margaret Amos and Soloman Mark.
Bowman T.C.J.:
This appeal is from an assessment for 1995 whereby the Minister of National Revenue denied the appellant’s claim for a disability tax credit under section 118.3 of the Income Tax Act.
The appellant at the time of hearing in 1998 was 56 years of age. He has not worked since 1990, and has been receiving a disability pension.
McArthur T.C.J.:
This appeal is from assessments by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) wherein the Minister added to the Appellant’s income $2,086.60 and $760.50 in 1995 and 1996 respectively. These amounts were the value attached to a complimentary parks pass given to the Appellant by the City of Burnaby, British Columbia.
McArthur T . C.J.:
The Respondent applies for an order dismissing the Appellant’s appeal on the ground that it does not conform with the requirements of section 169 of the Income Tax Act (Act), in that the Appellant did not serve a Notice of Objection on the Minister of National Revenue.
The Appellant considered letters she wrote to the Regional Office of Revenue Canada and to Active Bailiff Service Limited were a valid Notice of Appeal.
Bowie T.C.J.:
McArthur T.C.J.:
This is an application by Theresia Anne Peach for an order to:
(a) appeal her 1991 and 1992 taxation years; and
(b) file an objection to her 1993 taxation year.
With respect to (a);
• the assessment was mailed July 19, 1995, an objection was filed August 31, 1995 and it was confirmed June 5, 1996.
McArthur T.C.J.:
This is an application by James Hewitt Peach for an order extending the time to:
(a) appeal his 1992 and 1993 taxation years; and
(b) file an objection to his 1995 taxation year.
With respect to (a) taxation years 1992 and 1993;
McArthur T.C.J.:
The Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) disallowed the Appellant’s claim for the 1994 and 1995 taxation years for a deduction of $8,000 and $7,200 as alimony or maintenance and child support with respect to his estranged spouse Barbara Boachie-Yiadom and the sum of $5,380 for the same years in respect of his child Christel born from another union.
Dealing firstly with claim number 1:
