Tax Court of Canada Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

Docket: 2002-1455(IT)I

BETWEEN:

BRIAN WILLIAM KILOH,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

Appeal heard on May 2, 2003 at Kamloops, British Columbia

Before: The Honourable Judge D.W. Beaubier

Appearances:

For the Appellant:

The Appellant himself

Counsel for the Respondent:

Michael Taylor

____________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

The appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 2000 taxation year is dismissed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.

Signed at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, this 13th day of May, 2003.

"D.W. Beaubier"

J.T.C.C.


Citation: 2003TCC329

Date: 20030513

Docket: 2002-1455(IT)I

BETWEEN:

BRIAN WILLIAM KILOH,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Beaubier, J.T.C.C.

[1]      This appeal pursuant to the Informal Procedure was heard at Kamloops, British Columbia, on May 2, 2003. The Appellant was the only witness.

[2]      Paragraphs 4 to 9 inclusive of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal read:

4.          In calculating his refund for the 2000 taxation year, the Appellant claimed employment insurance overpayment of $1,837 (the "EI Overpayment").

5.          The Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") initially assessed the Appellant for the 2000 taxation year. The Notice of Assessment was dated April 26, 2001.

6.          In initially assessing the Appellant for the 2000 taxation year, the Minister disallowed the EI Overpayment.

7.          In so assessing the Appellant for the 2000 taxation year, the Minister relied on the following assumptions:

a)          during the 2000 taxation year, the Appellant was employed by A Sanford and Son Enterprises Ltd. and DJ Ventures Ltd. (the "Employers");

b)          in the 2000 taxation year the Appellant earned employment income of $17,779.00 from the Employers;

c)          in the 2000 taxation year the Employers withheld employment insurance premiums for the Appellant of $426.71 (the "EI Premiums");

d)          in the 2000 taxation year the Appellant received employment insurance benefits of $11,816 (the "EI Benefits");

e)          federal income tax of $1,837 (the "Tax") was withheld from the EI Benefits;

f)           the Appellant's EI Premiums for the 2000 taxation year did not exceed $936 required to claim an overpayment of employment insurance; and

g)          the Appellant was not entitled to the EI Overpayment.

B.         ISSUE TO BE DECIDED

8.          The issue is whether the Appellant is entitled to the EI Overpayment.

C.         STATUTORY PROVISIONS RELIED ON

9.          He relies on subsection 248(1), paragraphs 60(n) and 153(1)(d.1) and subparagraph 56(1)(a)(iv) of Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), as amended (the "Act") and regulation 100(1) of the Income Tax Regulations.

[3]      None of the assumptions were refuted.

[4]      In particular, the Appellant argued the employment insurance benefits should not be subject to income tax. However, subparagraph 56(1)(a)(iv) specifically levies income tax on employment insurance benefits.

[5]      The Appellant's second dispute was because a refund due to him in 1997 was not given to him; rather, it was applied on income tax which he owed for 1994. That is the appropriate course in such a case and it corresponds to the right of set off in ordinary commercial practice.

[6]      For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

Signed at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan this 13th day of May, 2003.

"D.W. Beaubier"

J.T.C.C.


CITATION:

2003TCC329

COURT FILE NO.:

2002-1455(IT)I

STYLE OF CAUSE:

Brian William Kiloh v. The Queen

PLACE OF HEARING:

Kamloops, British Columbia

DATE OF HEARING:

May 2, 2003

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:

The Honourable D.W. Beaubier

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

May 13, 2003

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

The Appellant himself

Counsel for the Respondent:

Michael Taylor

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For the Appellant:

Name:

Firm:

For the Respondent:

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Canada

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.