Date: 19971028
Docket: 96-4165-IT-I
BETWEEN:
ROBERT RITCHIE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons for Judgment
Beaubier, J.T.C.C.
[1] On October 24, 1997 the Appellant moved to reopen judgment in this matter on the basis that he had failed to change his address for Court purposes and therefore did not receive notice of the hearing in which default judgment was granted against him. There was no opposition from the Respondent and the motion was granted.
[2] Thereupon, on the consent of the parties, the matter proceeded to a hearing on the issues pursuant to the Informal Procedure. The Appellant was the only witness.
[3] The Appellant has appealed a disallowance of a claim to deduct child care expenses for his 1994 taxation year. Paragraph 5 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal reads as follows:
5. In so reassessing the Appellant, the Minister made the following assumptions of fact:
(a) the Appellant did not incur child care expenses (referred to above and hereinafter as the ("Expenses") in the 1994 taxation year;
(b) the Appellant has not proven the alleged Expenses as, or on account of, child care expenses by filing with the Minister one or more receipts, each of which was issued by the payee and contains, where the payee is an individual, that individual's Social Insurance Number;
[4] The Appellant has claimed the amount of $6,000 as a deduction in his 1994 taxation year although he failed to file any receipts or the Social Insurance Number of the person whom he testified cared for the children.
[5] The Appellant stated that the caregiver was a 13 year old girl whose first name was "Catherine". He testified that he gave the last name of the girl to Revenue Canada. He also asked the girl for a receipt, but her parents did not permit her to give one to him. He believes that the girl had no Social Insurance Number on account of her age. His testimony is that Catherine provided child care for his 10 year old and 7 year old children from the beginning of 1994 to the end of the academic year, 1994. In the fall of 1994 he found a registered day care centre to care for the children. The essence of what he has stated to the Court is that he paid a 13 year old $1,000 in cash per month to provide after school care for his two children. He offered no supporting evidence for this although he did say that his bank book would show regular withdrawals of appropriate sums.
[6] There are currently decisions of this Court going both ways on the question as to whether or not the requirements of receipts and a Social Insurance Number contained in section 63 of the Income Tax Act are mandatory or directory. However, in this case, it is not necessary for the Court to enter into a review of that law.
[7] Without some corroborating evidence from the Appellant such as receipts and a Social Insurance Number or the testimony of the 13 year old girl Catherine (who would now be 16 or 17) to the effect that she was babysitting the Appellant's children and was paid the wages described, the Court does not accept the Appellant's testimony by itself to the effect that he paid a 13 year old girl $6,000 in cash in 1994 for the services already described.
[8] The principle of section 63 is that corroboration is required. Certainly, in the circumstances of this case, the mere testimony of the Appellant is not enough to overcome the assumptions without corroboration.
[9] The appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 28th day of October, 1997.
"D.W. Beaubier"
J.T.C.C.