Date: 20020424
Docket: 2001-4268-IT-I
BETWEEN:
STAMATIA MANDAS,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasonsfor Judgment
Bell, J.T.C.C.
ISSUE:
[1] Whether the sums totalling $4,218.79 expended by the taxpayer, substantially for the purchase of toys used in the therapy of her autistic son, Theodore, are medical expenses within the meaning of section 118.2 of the Income Tax Act entitling the Appellant to a medical expense credit within the meaning of subsection 118.2(1)[1].
FACTS:
[2] The Appellant, intelligent and articulate, testified that in order to obtain assistance for her autistic son, Theodore, she discovered an applied behavioural analysis ("ABA") program designed by a company called Project P.A.C.E. based in Beaverton, Oregon. She hired P.A.C.A. to design a program for Theodore, to train individuals hired as therapists to work one on one with Theodore and to provide periodic workshops to update training and assess his progress. She stated that the Government of Ontario has adopted this treatment for six years of age and younger, this being known as Intensive Behavioural Intervention.
[3] The Appellant explained how therapists came to their home basically using toys to help the establishment of eye contact and verbal communication. She described the substantial progress made as a result of this therapy. She said that the therapists brought some toys but that she acquired other articles to "get his attention" such as balloons and silly putty.
[4] The Appellant, in her 1999 taxation year, deducted a non-refundable medical expense credit arising from medical expenses in the sum of $11,816.30. Ultimately, the Minister of National Revenue ("Minister") allowed the medical expense credit regarding medical expenses of $7,597.00. This left a total of $4,219.00 in respect of which no medical expense credit was allowed. It is in respect to this sum that the appeal was taken.
[5] The Appellant stated that she and her husband elected to use alternative care rather than seeking medical care.
[6] Section 118.2 provides for a medical expense credit. The formula for establishing same includes, as one component, "medical expenses that are proven by filing receipts ... with the Minister". Subsection 118.2(2) sets forth the description of a number of amounts, each of which constitutes a "medical expense" for the purpose of the above credit computation. They include payments to medical practitioners, dentists or nurses, for attendance and attendant care, nursing home expenses, school or institutional training, transportation et cetera. The subsection includes payments for artificial limbs, diapers, eyeglasses, oxygen tents, animals for the blind, drugs and medicaments, laboratory diagnostic procedures, health services premiums et cetera. Specifically, paragraph 118.2(2)(l.8) provided, for 1999, for amounts paid:
(l.8) for reasonable expenses ... to train ... a person related to the individual, if the training relates to the mental or physical infirmity of a person who
(i) is related to the individual, and
(ii) is a member of the individual's household or is dependent on the individual for support.
The provision for reasonable expenses described in paragraph (l.8) seems clearly to apply to expenses to train a handicapped person, referring to services performed rather than to the costs of physical objects. Therefore, the Appellant cannot obtain relief under this paragraph.
[7] Paragraph 118.2(2)(m) provided, for the year in question, for amounts paid
(m) for any device or equipment for use by the patient that
(i) is of a prescribed kind,
(ii) is prescribed by a medical practitioner,
(iii) is not described in any other paragraph of this subsection, and
(iv) meets such conditions as are prescribed as to its use or the reason for its acquisition
to the extent that the amount so paid does not exceed the amount, if any, prescribed in respect of the device or equipment.
[8] Section 5700 of the Income Tax Regulations, for the purpose of paragraph 118.2(m) provides that a device or equipment is prescribed if it falls within the numerous paragraphs of that section. They include such things as wigs, needles or syringes, air or water purifiers, air conditioners, sealed combustion furnaces, orthopaedic shoes et cetera. Nothing in that section would relate to toys, being the physical objects forming the basis of the Appellant's claim. Accordingly, no relief can be given to the Appellant under paragraph (m).
[9] There is no other provision in the above described legislation of assistance to the Appellant.
[10] The Appellant's evidence was clearly and very competently presented. She had excellent credibility. I accept all evidence presented by her. Unfortunately, the Income Tax Act simply does not have relief or qualifying provisions elastic enough to encompass the Appellant's circumstances. She is to be greatly admired for spearheading the decision to assist her son in the manner described. She is to be congratulated for her research in discovering and using the type of assistance which has obviously been of substantial aid to Theodore. The legislation, in my opinion, is wanting in this area. It is to be hoped that appropriate amendments to fill an obvious vacancy will be made.
[11] The appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Vancouver, Canada this 24th day of April, 2002.
"R.D. Bell"
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE NO.: 2001-4268(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: Stamatia Mandas v. The Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: April 8, 2002
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Judge R.D. Bell
DATE OF JUDGMENT: April 24, 2002
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: The Appellant herself
Counsel for the Respondent: Catherine Letellier de St-Just
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the Respondent: Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
2001-4268(IT)I
BETWEEN:
STAMATIA MANDAS,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on April 8, 2002 at Toronto, Ontario, by
the Honourable Judge R.D. Bell
Appearances
For the Appellant: The Appellant herself
Counsel for the Respondent: Catherine Letellier de St-Just
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the reassessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 1999 taxation year is dismissed, in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Vancouver, Canada this 24th day of April, 2002.
|
"R.D. Bell" |
J.T.C.C.