[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
98-659(IT)I
98-1460(IT)I
BETWEEN:
FERNANDE CHAMPOUX,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeals heard on December 3, 1998, at Québec, Quebec, by
the Honourable Judge Alain Tardif
Appearances
For the Appellant: The Appellant herself
Counsel for the Respondent: Aziz Saheb-Ettaba
JUDGMENT
The appeals from the assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the 1995 and 1996 taxation years are dismissed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 9th day of December 1998.
|
"Alain Tardif" |
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 10th day of July 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Date: 19981209
Dockets: 98-659(IT)I
98-1460(IT)I
BETWEEN:
FERNANDE CHAMPOUX,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Tardif, J.T.C.C.
[1] These are two appeals for the 1995 and 1996 taxation years.
[2] In these two taxation years, the appellant declared as income solely the amount of her support payments: $11,962.08 in 1995 and $12,231.00 in 1996. She did not make any calculations to determine the amount of income tax payable and left it to the respondent to do so.
[3] The Department therefore made this calculation and determined that the appellant owed money for each of the taxation years at issue, a determination the appellant is contesting.
[4] The appellant clearly invested a great deal of time and energy in preparing her case and presented her position clearly.
[5] After acknowledging that the calculations in her case for the 1995 and 1996 taxation years were accurate and admitting that they complied with the Income Tax Act, (''the Act''), the appellant vigorously argued that she was the victim of a great and serious injustice.
[6] Comparing herself with taxpayers receiving social assistance benefits, the appellant stated that these persons had a number of advantages and privileges that were not available to her. In particular, she referred to the fact that social assistance beneficiaries were not obliged to cover the costs of a wide range of special needs that were covered directly by social assistance. In her opinion, coverage of those costs constituted veiled income.
[7] In particular, the appellant listed the costs of repairs to the electric system, plumbing, heating system and refrigerator, as well as certain professional fees. According to the appellant, all of these costs are covered directly by the government and therefore are not included in the monthly amount paid under the statutory program.
[8] The appellant argued that she was very familiar with this situation because she herself had been obliged to resort to social assistance when she was not receiving support payments.
[9] The appellant therefore claimed and argued before the Court that under these circumstances she, too, should be able to exclude from her income the various amounts she was obliged to pay out to meet the same essential needs admitted and recognized by social assistance.
[10] The appellant's reasoning is certainly legitimate, particularly since her low income undoubtedly requires her to make painful sacrifices resulting in stress that is hard to bear; she can rely only on herself to meet all of her economic needs.
[11] While the appellant's two appeals generate a great deal of sympathy, they cannot be allowed since this Court is essentially authorized to rule, not in accordance with what it believes to be fair, but in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In this regard, I consider it important to note that the appellant herself admitted and acknowledged that the Department's calculations were accurate and in keeping with the Act.
[12] In this instance, the appellant's case for the two taxation years at issue was dealt with in full compliance with the applicable legislation, and I therefore have no choice but to dismiss the two appeals.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 9th day of December 1998.
|
"Alain Tardif" |
J.T.C.C.
Translation certified true
on this 10th day of July 2003.
Sophie Debbané, Revisor