Date: 20010227
Dockets: 97-1245-IT-G,
1999-121-IT-G,
1999-122-IT-G,
BETWEEN:
GINETTE LACHAPELLE MATHIEU,
ÉVARISTE MATHIEU,
CARMELLE BOUTIN,
Appellants,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons for Judgment
Lamarre Proulx, J.T.C.C.
[1] The appeals of Évariste Mathieu and Carmelle Boutin were heard on common evidence. They were heard consecutively to the appeal of Ginette Mathieu Lachapelle. The three appellants were assessed under section 160 of the Income Tax Act (the "Act").
[2] The assessment of the appellant Ginette Mathieu Lachapelle is dated June 5, 1996. It is in the amount of $78,573.13, which includes $17,250.40 in federal income tax, $2,761.74 in penalties and $58,560.99 in interest (Exhibit A-1, Tab 1). The confirmation is dated January 30, 1997 (Exhibit A-1, Tab 2). Ms. Mathieu Lachapelle was assessed for a transfer that allegedly took place on or about December 16, 1982.
[3] The assessments of Évariste Mathieu and Carmelle Boutin are dated December 16, 1997 (Tab 1 of Exhibit AM-1 and Tab 1 of Exhibit AM-5). Mr. Mathieu was assessed for a transfer that allegedly took place on or about December 16, 1982. Ms. Boutin was assessed for a transfer that allegedly took place on or about October 21, 1988. In both cases, the federal tax is $17,250.40, the penalty, $2,761.74 and the interest, $68,747.13, making a total of $88,759.27.
[4] On October 21, 1981, Conforbel (Canada) Inc. ("Conforbel") signed an agreement with Fitzpatrick Construction Limited ("Fitzpatrick") to construct a national monument to Algerian independence (Exhibit A-1, Tab 4).
[5] The agreement provided that Conforbel would provide comprehensive services for the construction and erection of the forms and installation of the concrete, both in Algeria and in Canada. The agreement provided that the work would commence in Algeria no later than January 1, 1982. It also provided that Évariste Mathieu would be personally in charge and would be responsible for the successful completion of the work.
[6] Expenses were reimbursed upon presentation of invoices or a pay list. Conforbel would receive $550,000 in fees, and the final payment would be made on June 30, 1982. It was also provided that $10,000 would be deposited in the name of Évariste Mathieu to guarantee performance of the work.
[7] At the outset, Évariste Mathieu held the only 100 common shares that were issued in respect of that corporation. About two weeks later, a daughter of Mr. Mathieu, France Mathieu Labrosse, became the sole shareholder. She was appointed president, vice president and secretary of the corporation. Along with some of her brothers and other persons unrelated to the family, she had a management role at Conforbel's place of business in Canada. It was there that the pay cheques were prepared, the books were kept, suppliers were chosen and other things required by the work were done. In Canada, there were two workshops that built and tested the forms needed to erect the monument. The forms were subsequently sent to Algeria.
[8] In 1982, Ms. Labrosse told her father that she had other plans and wished to be replaced. Mr. Mathieu then asked his daughter Ginette to become the registered shareholder. No explanation was given at the hearing as to why Mr. Mathieu did not want to be registered as a shareholder in the company's books. Nevertheless, it was clear from the testimony and the documentary evidence adduced at the hearing that he was the one who ran the company.
[9] On December 13, 1982, Conforbel issued a bank document in the name of Ginette Lachapelle in the amount of $500,000. The notations on it include [TRANSLATION] "Re deposit" and, in place of signatures, [TRANSLATION] "non-negotiable" (Exhibit A-1, Tab 7).
[10] At about that time, Évariste Mathieu, his wife, Carmelle Boutin, Ginette Mathieu Lachapelle and her then husband, Mr. Lachapelle, Gaétan Mathieu, the brother of Ginette Mathieu Lachapelle, and his then wife, Carole Smith, went to the Cayman Islands to deposit the $500,000. Ms. Smith interpreted for the others because they did not speak English. Ms. Boutin and her son-in-law, Mr. Lachapelle, apparently did not accompany the others to the office of the bank where the deposit was made.
[11] The deposit, dated December 16, 1982, was made in the names of Ginette Lachapelle and Évariste Mathieu at the Royal Bank of Canada, George Town, Grand Cayman (Exhibit A-1, Tab 8). There were two signatures, one by Évariste Mathieu and one by Ginette Lachapelle. The certificate, dated December 16, 1982 (Tab 9 of Exhibit A-1), shows a deposit in the amount of $600,000. It is in the name of Ginette Lachapelle and Évariste Mathieu or either of them. The $100,000 difference was not explained.
[12] According to the testimony of Ginette Mathieu and Évariste Mathieu, the parties' intention was to deposit the amount at the Royal Bank in the Cayman Islands in the name of Conforbel Canada Inc. They said that the Royal Bank did not accept deposits from corporations but only from individuals. They therefore decided to make the deposit in the name of Évariste Mathieu and his daughter Ginette. In his testimony, Mr. Mathieu said that he would have preferred to make the deposit in his own name and that of his wife, but that Ginette had objected to this and said that she would leave Conforbel if her name did not appear on the certificate of deposit.
[13] There was no explanation as to why it had been decided to take this amount to the Cayman Islands.
[14] InJanuary 1983, Ginette Mathieu, uneasy about having the certificate in her name when the money belonged to Conforbel, sought advice from the corporation's accountants. They suggested that she establish the true ownership of the deposit in a document and that she enter the amount in the corporation's assets and include the interest from the deposit in computing its income. The document can be found at Tab 11 of Exhibit A-1. It reads as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
We the undersigned, Ginette Lachapelle and Évariste Mathieu, declare that all sums of money that are or will be held in the following bank account(s): The Royal Bank of Canada, Grand Cayman, are held for and on behalf of Conforbel Canada Inc. The opening of this bank account or these bank accounts in the name of Ginette Lachapelle and Évariste Mathieu was necessitated by the fact that the Royal Bank of Canada, Grand Cayman, could not open a bank account in the name of Conforbel Canada Inc.
. . .
[15] The document is dated January 17, 1983. It was signed by Ginette Lachapelle and Évariste Mathieu. Two witnesses also signed. The financial statements and other documents found at Tabs 13 to 15 of Exhibit A-1 confirm Ginette Mathieu's testimony on this point.
[16] In 1984, there was a withdrawal of $300,000. At Tab 9 of Exhibit A-1, it can be seen that in April 1984, the Cayman Islands deposit was in the amount of $223,052.38. According to the appellant Ginette Mathieu Lachapelle, the withdrawal went through Conforbel in order to be loaned to a corporation of which Évariste Mathieu was a shareholder along with two of his sons. The loan was recorded in Conforbel's books.
[17] Conforbel was reassessed on October 15, 1985, for a refund of an overpayment of advances to the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité au travail (Tab 20 of Exhibit I-1). That assessment was contested. A judgment of this Court in 1993 confirmed the Minister of National Revenue's assessment. Strangely enough, nothing was said at the hearing in the instant case about the discussions that the managers must have held among themselves concerning the 1985 assessment. At that time, Ginette Mathieu Lachapelle and her father were still getting along.
[18] In 1988, Évariste Mathieu sent a letter to the Royal Bank of Canada in the Cayman Islands asking it to remove Ginette Mathieu's name and replace it with that of Carmelle Boutin, his wife (Tab 10 of Exhibit A-1). As can be seen at Tab 9 of Exhibit A-1, the certificate of deposit dated October 21, 1988, in the amount of $323,620.73 is in the names of Évariste Mathieu and Carmelle B. Mathieu.
[19] In 1988, Évariste Mathieu asked his daughter Ginette to lend some money to one of his construction firms. The total amount advanced was $225,000. This amount was admitted by both Mr. Mathieu and Ms. Mathieu. Ms. Mathieu asked him what guarantee she had that the money would be paid back to her. Her father apparently told her that she had an excellent guarantee because she was a shareholder of Conforbel and the joint holder of the certificate of deposit.
[20] In 1990, at the request of Évariste Mathieu, who wished to purchase and dispose of land without any restrictions, Resolution 90-1 was adopted by Conforbel (Tab 18 of Exhibit A-1). According to Ms. Mathieu, the purchase of land for construction had been made through Conforbel because Conforbel had sufficient assets to give the banks confidence.
[21] In 1991, Ginette Mathieu Lachapelle apparently received an initial reimbursement of $20,000 from her father for the $225,000 loan but at the same time she apparently received confirmation from her father that her mother had replaced her as the second person named on the certificate. The fact that this had been done behind her back offended her. She sent a formal notice to her father that he was no longer the company's director, that by-law 90-1 had been rescinded and that he no longer had any powers (Tab 20 of Exhibit A-1). This document is dated June 6, 1991.
[22] Évariste Mathieu asked a notary named Farley to prepare the documents to transfer his daughter's shares to him. However, she did not sign the documents. Subsequently, Mr. Mathieu said that he no longer had anything to do with the company. The documents were apparently prepared in May or June 1991, according to a letter by Mr. Farley, the notary, dated September 14, 2000 (Exhibit AM-4).
[23] Subsequently, Ginette Mathieu Lachapelle brought some actions against her father and mother in order to be reimbursed for the balance of the Cayman Islands bank deposit. In response to a formal notice, counsel for the parents replied that Ms. Mathieu Lachapelle was only a nominee (Tab 21 of Exhibit A-1). On May 7, 1992, in reply to an amended declaration by Ginette Mathieu adding the name of Conforbel, Évariste Mathieu contended that all the money belonged to him because it came from work that he had performed for Fitzpatrick.
[24] The transcript entitled [TRANSLATION] "Examination of Évariste Mathieu after filing of defence on the application of the plaintiff", dated October 2, 1992, from a case in the Quebec Superior Court between Ginette Mathieu Lachapelle and Évariste Mathieu and Carmelle Boutin Mathieu was tendered in evidence at Tab 24 of Exhibit A-1. I will quote a few passages:
[TRANSLATION]
Q. In paragraph 5 of your pleading, Mr. Mathieu, you say that the certificate in question, that is the certificate of deposit for the deposit in Grand Cayman, rightfully belonged to you and [TRANSLATION] "that, by right, I could replace the plaintiff with my wife, Carmelle Boutin Mathieu." Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What makes you say that the certificate belonged to you by right?
A. Because the money was mine.
Q. The money was yours?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you stand by what you said?
A. I certainly do.
Q. You acted at some time, at a given time, as director of the Conforbel Canada company. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it not correct to say that the money belonged to Conforbel Canada?
A. That's correct. It came from Conforbel Canada.
Q. That's right. And that the money did not belong to you ...
A. No.
Q. It belonged to Conforbel Canada. Is that correct?
A. It's because Conforbel Canada belonged to me. Ginette was only acting as a nominee, as her daughter ... her sister had done before her.
. . .
MAURICE PERRON
Q. Mr. Mathieu, I say to you, Mr. Mathieu, that this document states that the money belongs to Conforbel Canada. Does the money belong to Conforbel Canada. Is this correct?
A. The document says that, but it's incorrect.
Q. In ‘83 and up to ‘90, I understand, Mr. Mathieu, that you handled the preparation of the financial statements for Conforbel Canada.
A. Yes.
Q. That's correct? Is it not also correct to say that the accountants who worked for the company at that time were Harel, Drouin et Associés?
A. Yes it is.
Q. It's correct. Is it not also correct to say that the financial statements that were prepared over the years by Harel, Drouin et Associés reflected the amount that had been invested or, at the very least, the interest on the Grand Cayman account?
A. I'd have to check.
. . .
Q. Yes? About that? Is ... you say in your defence that the deposit was cashed. In paragraph 15 of your pleading ... no, it isn't 15 ... it's 14, right? O.K. You say that it was in eighty ... - paragraph 17 - that you decided to replace Ginette Mathieu with your spouse.
A. Yes. My wife asked me to, and I didn't see ... I no longer saw the need for my daughter to be there; so I replaced her with my wife.
. . .
Q. And the money, Mr. Mathieu, that you cashed in April 91, you deposited it in your account, I suppose?
A. That's nobody's business. It's my business.
Q. Mr. Mathieu ...
A. I have the right to do what I want with my money.
Q. ... you have to answer the questions you are asked. You have no choice.
[25] The appellant Ginette Mathieu Lachapelle repeated, in a sworn statement dated June 3, 1993, that was made for the purpose of finding out what had happened to the funds deposited in the Royal Bank in the Cayman Islands, that these funds were the property of Conforbel (Tab 4 of Exhibit I-1).
[26] On October 23, 1990, the deposit amounted to $400,653.14 (Tab 17, Exhibit I-1). This was the last certificate that was tendered in evidence. It is dated October 24, 1990. It shows that the deposit was being used at that time to secure a $150,000 mortgage.
[27] According to his testimony at the hearing, Mr. Mathieu withdrew the balance of the bank deposit in 1992 to lend it to Construction Alain et Sylvain. There is no documentary evidence to that effect.
[28] Ms. Boutin's testimony consisted in saying that her husband did not tell her that she was the joint holder of the certificate of deposit. Her husband testified to the same effect at the hearing. She did not make personal use of the money and she believed that none of her companies profited from it either.
[29] Ms. Boutin admitted that 2854-7750 Québec Inc. was a corporation in which she was the principal shareholder. On April 30, 1991, this corporation received the sum of $272,558.48 (Exhibit AM-6). She was unable to explain the source of this payment.
[30] Serafino Longo, an official of the Minister's, testified to describe Ms. Boutin's income as it related to, inter alia, her gross rental income; Exhibit IM-3 was filed in support of this. For the 1988 to 1996 taxation years, her gross rental income was, respectively, $29,613, $47,244, $48,538, $61,645, $136,530, $221,889, $240,146, $255,490 and $248,523.
Argument in the appeal of Ginette Mathieu Lachapelle
[31] Counsel for the appellant contended that Évariste Mathieu was the one who really controlled Conforbel from the beginning until 1990. Thus, in 1990, he had a special by-law passed by Conforbel that gave him full power over the corporation (Tab 18 of Exhibit A-1). Nevertheless, the appellant had had a role as a director since the fall of 1982. In this capacity, she had participated in depositing the $500,000 in the Royal Bank in Grand Cayman. However, in January 1983, she took care to make a written declaration that this money belonged to Conforbel. The interest was reported every year in Conforbel's financial statements. When, in 1984, a portion of the investment was brought back to Canada to be loaned out, the loan was recorded in the financial statements. There was no transaction showing that Ms. Mathieu had benefited financially from this investment.
[32] When the appellant's name was replaced in 1988 with that of her mother, Ms. Boutin, she was not informed. She learned of it only in 1991. This fact shows that Évariste Mathieu believed that he controlled both this account and Conforbel's account.
[33] Counsel for the appellant argued that, beginning in 1992, the appellant had tried to find out what had happened with Conforbel's certificate in the Cayman Islands. She attempted to assert Conforbel's rights in respect of the amount on the certificate through various court proceedings against her parents.
[34] Counsel for the respondent argued that the existence of the transfer contemplated in subsection 160(1) is a question of fact and of the transferee's or transferor's credibility. She referred to the decision in Fasken Estate v. M.N.R., [1948] C.T.C. 265, and to the comment of Thorson P. at page 279:
The word "transfer" is not a term of art and has not a technical meaning. It is not necessary to a transfer of property from a husband to his wife that it should be made in any particular form or that it should be made directly. All that is required is that the husband should so deal with the property as to divest himself of it and vest it in his wife, that is to say, pass the property from himself to her. The means by which he accomplishes this result, whether direct or circuitous, may properly be called a transfer.
[35] She also referred to the decision in Dunkelman v. M.N.R., 59 DTC 1242, and the comment of Thurlow J. at page 1244:
The word "transfer" is not a term of art and has not a technical meaning. It is not necessary to a transfer of property from a husband to his wife that it should be made in any particular form or that it should be made directly. All that is required is that the husband should so deal with the property as to divest himself of it and vest it in his wife, that is to say, pass the property from himself to her. The means by which he accomplishes this result, whether direct or circuitous, may properly be called a transfer.
[36] Counsel for the respondent said that the evidence must be assessed in order to determine whether the appellant had not benefited from this money. For this purpose, the parties' intention must be taken into account.
[37] She referred to Évariste Mathieu's testimony on the Algerian contract to the effect that [TRANSLATION] "It started at zero and came back down to zero". Did the appellant not subscribe to this philosophy? At Tab 6, there is a management contract in the amount of $404,000, which was paid on an administrative basis for services that were apparently not rendered by this company. This agreement was entered into for tax purposes only.
[38] Counsel argued that there was no evidence that the appellant, unlike her father, did not have the discretion to use the funds in the Cayman Islands account as she wished. Since her father changed the name of the account holder, she could have done the same thing. She facilitated the decisions and supported them. In 1988, she lent her father $225,000. This loan was not repaid. Her father apparently told her not to worry, since her name was on the certificate.
[39] Counsel for the respondent argued that the appellant had full control and that she was in favour of the transfer. She was a person who had a great deal of knowledge and who was involved in Conforbel. Although the appellant maintained that the amount was always considered to be an asset of Conforbel, counsel for the respondent urged me to caution, because the financial statements were not reliable; they had not been audited or even reviewed.
Argument in the appeals of Évariste Mathieu and Carmelle Boutin
[40] Counsel for the appellants argued that there had been no transfer in 1982 since, as noted in Ginette Mathieu Lachapelle's case, the full amount of the certificate was recorded in Conforbel's books. In 1984, the amount of $300,000, which had been withdrawn from the bank account, went through Conforbel. The advances or loans to related businesses were indicated in Conforbel's financial statements. With regard to the second amount that was withdrawn in 1991 from the certificate of deposit, this money was not used personally by Mr. Mathieu or by Ms. Boutin. The money was lent to companies.
[41] As regards Ms. Boutin, the transfer was not between Conforbel and Ms. Boutin, but between Évariste Mathieu and Ms. Boutin. Ms. Boutin was not involved either in opening the bank account in 1982 or in the name change in 1988. Ms. Boutin never agreed to be the recipient of the money and she had no control over it.
[42] In respect of Ms. Boutin, counsel for the appellants referred to the following paragraphs from the decision in Nanini et al. v. The Queen, T.C.C., No. 92-2366(IT)G, June 13, 1994, at pages 15 and 16 (94 DTC 1839, at page 1847):
As to whether the transferee in the first transfer may itself become a transferor rendering a new transferee liable, the Court was not convinced by the argument of counsel for the respondent that this mechanism is provided in the last lines of subsection 160(1):
. . . but nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to limit the liability of the transferor under any other provision of this Act.
In reality, the Court quite simply does not see how this phrase can be interpreted to mean that a transferee may himself become a transferor, rendering another transferee jointly and severally liable and so on in a cascade effect.
. . .
Furthermore, section 160 in itself is already enough outside the scope of common law that if Parliament had wanted to do it in a cascading fashion, it would have specifically stated so.
[43] Counsel for the appellants also raised the matter of the interest. He showed that the tax liability was approximately $17,000 and that the amount of the interest was approximately $60,000. Counsel for the appellants asked the Court to recommend cancellation of the interest.
[44] Counsel for the appellants also argued that the documents of Conforbel were no longer in their hands since, in 1991, Ginette Mathieu Lachapelle as sole shareholder removed the director, Évariste Mathieu, and that it was up to Ginette Mathieu Lachapelle to pay Conforbel's debts.
[45] Counsel for the respondent argued that Mr. Mathieu controlled the corporation. There are many documents showing that Mr. Mathieu signed as director of the corporation. No consideration was given in return for the $500,000 amount. Mr. Mathieu's story has varied depending on the interests that he has had to defend. According to the transcript of Évariste Mathieu's testimony, filed at Tab 24 of Exhibit A-1, Ms. Boutin was aware of the transfer. Mr. Mathieu withdrew the money in 1991. The story as to what happened to the amount withdrawn changes from one proceeding to the next. According to counsel for the respondent, the best explanation is the following: on April 30, 1991, $272,000 was deposited into the account of a corporation of which Ms. Boutin was the principal shareholder. This $272,000 plus the $150,000 that was security for the mortgage on the principal residence made a total of $422,000, which was the amount that remained on the certificate of deposit. The deposit of $272,000 into the funds of the corporation of which Ms. Boutin was the principal shareholder constituted a direct or indirect transfer within the meaning of section 160 of the Act.
[46] According to counsel for the respondent, Ms. Boutin could not have been unaware that she was a joint holder of the account with her husband. Ms. Boutin was involved in many business activities. She owned rental property. Furthermore, she could not have been unaware of the above-mentioned deposit.
[47] Counsel for the respondent argued that the Minister had acted with due dispatch. Conforbel was assessed in 1985. The judgment of the Tax Court of Canada confirming the assessment was issued in 1993. There was an initial assessment of Ginette Mathieu Lachapelle in June 1996. From 1994 to 1996, the Minister had attempted to collect the amount of the assessment from Conforbel. In December 1997, after discussions with Ginette Mathieu Lachapelle, Évariste Mathieu and Carmelle Boutin were assessed.
[48] With regard to the interest, counsel for the respondent argued that interest is calculated on the transferor's tax liability up to the amount received. In that connection, she referred to the decision of this Court in Algoa Trust v. The Queen, T.C.C., No. 96-1186(IT)G, February 23, 1998, (98 DTC 1614), rendered by Judge Dussault, and in particular to paragraph 6 of that decision:
Thirdly, I would say that there is no provision of the Act regarding interest that may be applicable to an assessment issued pursuant to s. 160 of the Act. This is logical, since there is no new tax debt and an assessment under s. 160 already incorporates the interest which the transferor owed in addition to the tax. The assessment may also incorporate penalties and interest thereon.
Conclusion
[49] With regard to due dispatch, the facts that were presented do not lead me to the conclusion that the Minister failed to act with dispatch. There was no delay in issuing the assessments following this Court's judgment against Conforbel. In any case, even a failure to act with due dispatch does not render the assessments null and void within the meaning of the Act, according to the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Ginsberg v. Canada, [1996] 3 F.C. 334.
[50] As regards the inclusion in the subject assessments of the interest owed by the transferor, Conforbel, on the amount of tax owed since its 1983 taxation year, I am of the view that the wording of the above-quoted paragraph 6 from the decision in Algoa Trust, supra, offers a good explanation of the position taken by Judge Dussault in that case. The transferee cannot be assessed for more than the market value of the transferred asset minus the consideration, but he or she may be assessed for all of the transferor's tax liability, including penalties and interest accrued in respect thereof from the time of the assessment of the transferee. This calculation is based on the fact that, at the time of the transfer, the transferee becomes the joint and several debtor of the transferor's tax liability.
[51] Counsel for the respondent urged me to be careful in reaching my decision concerning Ginette Mathieu Lachapelle. It is true that the certificate was made in her name and that one of the actions against her parents was brought in her name. However, in both cases, she corrected her claims. She asked her father to sign the document reproduced at paragraph 14 of these Reasons. That document clearly states that the sum in question belonged to Conforbel. Withdrawals and interest were always accounted for in the financial statements. The evidence shows no indication that the appellant acted as an owner in respect of the certificate. She was a shareholder of Conforbel. She wanted the amounts to remain the property of Conforbel. She did not personally appropriate the funds deposited in her name and in the name of her father. She cannot, therefore, be assessed under section 160 of the Act. Her appeal is accordingly allowed.
[52] With regard to Évariste Mathieu, he behaved at all times as the real owner of the money. He was the one who had it at his disposal. He could not understand that it belonged to Conforbel because it was Conforbel that had negotiated the agreement with Fitzpatrick and it was Conforbel that had been paid. He could not make the necessary distinctions.
[53] In 1988, without telling Ginette Mathieu Lachapelle, he replaced her name with his spouse's name. He could do this because he had transferred the money in 1982 to a bank account in his own name. The subsequent actions of Mr. Mathieu, who had effective control over the corporation, show that the deposited amount was in reality transferred from Conforbel to him in 1982. In 1991, the remaining amount was withdrawn without Conforbel's knowledge. This amount was therefore not accounted for by Conforbel.
[54] The transferee did not use the funds in his account immediately but I do not believe that this is required by section 160. It was enough that he acted as a transferee and had the intention to act as an owner.
[55] Mr. Mathieu exercised control over Conforbel until June 6, 1991. It was in 1988 that Ms. Boutin's name replaced that of Ginette Mathieu Lachapelle, and it was in April 1991 that the money was withdrawn from the bank account. Conforbel, which was controlled by Mr. Mathieu, was the transferor in 1982 and in 1988. The transferees were Mr. Mathieu in 1982 and Carmelle Boutin in 1988.
[56] There was no documentary evidence as to what happened to the remaining amount on the certificate. In the circumstances, counsel for the respondent's suggestion that the amount of $272,000 that remained after subtracting the $150,000 used to pay back the mortgage was deposited in the account of Ms. Boutin's corporation is the one that appears the most plausible. Thus, Ms. Boutin, whose name appeared as a transferee on the certificate, acted as an owner by accepting the deposit of $272,000 into a corporation of which she was the shareholder. Ms. Boutin did not offer any explanations as to the source of this amount of $272,000 that appears on Exhibit AM-6.
[57] It is thus impossible to accept the appellant's account that her husband had not told her that the certificate had been placed in her name in 1988. Furthermore, the notice of appeal does not mention that the appellant did not know that she had become the joint holder of the bank deposit.
[58] The appeals of Évariste Mathieu and Carmelle Boutin are dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 27th day of February 2001.
"Louise Lamarre Proulx"
J.T.C.C.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
97-1245(IT)G
BETWEEN:
GINETTE LACHAPELLE MATHIEU,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on October 18 and 19 and November 3, 2000,
at Montréal, Quebec, by
the Honourable Judge Louise Lamarre Proulx
Appearances
Counsel for the Appellant: Michel Poulin
Counsel for the Respondent: Johanne M. Boudreau
Stéphane Arcelin
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessment made under section 160 of theIncome Tax Act notice of which bears number 08455 and is dated June 5, 1996, is allowed, with costs, in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 27th day of February 2001.
|
"Louise Lamarre Proulx" |
J.T.C.C.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
1999-121(IT)G
BETWEEN:
ÉVARISTE MATHIEU,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeal of Carmelle Boutin (1999-122(IT)G) on October 18 and 19 and November 3, 2000,
at Montréal, Quebec,
by the Honourable Judge Louise Lamarre Proulx
Appearances
Counsel for the Appellant: Normand Bérubé
Counsel for the Respondent: Johanne M. Boudreau
Stéphane Arcelin
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessment made under section 160 of theIncome Tax Act notice of which bears number 01628 and is dated December 16, 1997, is dismissed, with costs, in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 27th day of February 2001.
|
"Louise Lamarre Proulx" |
J.T.C.C.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
1999-122(IT)G
BETWEEN:
CARMELLE BOUTIN,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeal of Évariste Mathieu (1999-121(IT)G) on October 18 and 19 and November 3, 2000,
at Montréal, Quebec,
by the Honourable Judge Louise Lamarre Proulx
Appearances
Counsel for the Appellant: Normand Bérubé
Counsel for the Respondent: Johanne M. Boudreau
Stéphane Arcelin
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessment made under section 160 of the Income Tax Act notice of which bears number 01629 and is dated December 16, 1997, is dismissed, with costs, in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 27th day of February 2001.
|
"Louise Lamarre Proulx" |
J.T.C.C.