|
Docket: 2003-1845(IT)I |
|
BETWEEN: |
|
THOMAS PAT RILEY, |
|
Appellant, |
|
and |
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, |
|
Respondent. |
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on November 25, 2003 at Nanaimo, British Columbia
|
Before: The Honourable Justice D.W. Beaubier |
|
|
|
|
|
Appearances: |
|
|
|
|
|
For the Appellant: |
The Appellant himself |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Stacey Michael Repas |
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 2001 taxation year is dismissed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Saskatoon, Canada, this 19th day of December 2003.
|
"D.W. Beaubier" |
Beaubier, J.
|
Citation: 2003TCC916 |
|
Date: 20031219 |
|
Docket: 2003-1845(IT)I |
|
BETWEEN: |
|
THOMAS PAT RILEY, |
|
Appellant, |
|
and |
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, |
|
Respondent. |
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Beaubier, J.
[1] This appeal pursuant to the Informal Procedure was heard at Nanaimo, British Columbia on November 25, 2003. The Appellant testified. He was the only witness.
[2] Paragraphs 3 to 9 inclusive of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal set out the matters in dispute. They read:
3. In computing non-refundable tax credits for the 2001 taxation year, the Appellant claimed a Disability Tax Credit ("DTC") of $6,000.00.
4. By assessment dated August 9, 2002, the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") disallowed the claimed DTC for the Appellant's 2001 taxation year.
5. The Appellant objected to the assessment by serving on the Minister a Notice of Objection dated November 28, 2002.
6. The Minister responded to the objection by issuing a Notice of Confirmation dated January 10, 2003.
7. In so assessing the Appellant, the Minister relied on the following assumptions of fact:
a) the Appellant's doctor, Dr. W. Phipps, completed a Disability Tax Credit Certificate (the "Certificate") in respect of the Appellant;
b) Dr. Phipps indicated in the Certificate that the Appellant is blind in his left eye;
c) Dr. Phipps did not indicate in the Certificate that the Appellant's ability to walk is markedly restricted;
d) in the 2001 taxation year, the Appellant did not suffer from an impairment which caused him to be unable to walk all or substantially all of the time;
e) the Appellant was able to, and did not require an inordinate amount of time to perform the basic activities of daily living, including walking; and
f) the Appellant had a medical condition which did not cause him to be markedly restricted in his basic activities of daily living in 2001.
B. ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
8. The issue is whether the Appellant is entitled to claim a DTC as a non-refundable tax credit for the 2001 taxation year.
C. STATUTORY PROVISIONS RELIED ON
9. He relies on sections 118.3 and 118.4 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), as amended for the 2001 taxation year (the "Act").
[3] Assumptions 7 a), b) and c) were not refuted by the evidence. The Appellant's left knee was operated on and replaced on December 18, 2000.
[4] After March, 2001 and certainly after April, 2001, the Appellant could walk within the meaning set out in the Income Tax Act.
[5] Dr. Phipps filled the Certificate out incorrectly in question 1, respecting the Appellant's eyesight. Moreover, the Appellant's hearing is bad and has been for two or three years. He could not hear Respondent's counsel's questions without frequent repetition. His left eye is blind, he has lost his left hand and his left knee has been replaced.
[6] Cumulatively, in the Court's view, the Appellant is marginal respecting his disability, although it appears that each handicap, taken alone, falls outside of the Certificate's criteria for 2001.
[7] Thus, the appeal is dismissed for 2001. However, the Appellant is encouraged by the Court to continue to apply. He is a proud, honest, self-reliant man. He was born in 1934 and the Court has no doubt that all of the problems, given advancing age, will combine to fulfil the criteria of the Income Tax Act for the disability tax credit in due course.
[8] The appeal is dismissed. The Appellant is of modest means. Henceforth, any appeal by him based on similar circumstances, should be presented without the necessity for payment of the Court's fee.
Signed at Saskatoon, Canada, this 19th day of December 2003.
|
"D.W. Beaubier" |
Beaubier, J.
|
CITATION: |
2003TCC916 |
|
COURT FILE NO.: |
2003-1845(IT)I |
|
STYLE OF CAUSE: |
Thomas Pat Riley v. The Queen |
|
PLACE OF HEARING: |
Nanaimo, British Columbia |
|
DATE OF HEARING: |
November 25, 2003 |
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: |
The Honourable Justice Beaubier |
|
DATE OF JUDGMENT: |
December 19, 2003 |
|
APPEARANCES: |
|
For the Appellant: |
The Appellant himself |
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Stacey Michael Repas |
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD: |
|
For the Appellant: |
|
Name: |
|
|
Firm: |
|
|
For the Respondent: |
Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada |