Tax Court of Canada Judgments

  TAX COURT OF CANADA

  INCOME TAX ACT

 

  2006-122(IT)I

 

 

BETWEEN:  YVES A. PROULX

Appellant

 

 

-and-

 

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]

 

 

Held before the Honourable Justice PAUL BÉDARD, Tax Court of Canada, on the premises of the Courts Administration Service at Montréal , Quebec , on June 27, 2006

  --------------------

  JUDGMENT

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

YVES A. PROULX

Representing himself

 

BENOîT MANDEVILLE

Counsel for the Respondent

 

 

 

Clerk/Technician: Claude Lefebvre

 

 

 

 

 

  RIOPEL, GAGNON, LAROSE & ASSOCIÉS

  215 Saint-Jacques Street

  Suite 328

  Montréal, Quebec  H2Y 1M6

 

 

 

IT-4843  JEAN LAROSE, O.S.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE BÉDARD:  Upon filing his income tax return for the 2004 taxation year, the Appellant claimed a deduction of $2,506 on account of legal fees related to a court motion by which he sought to reduce the amount of his support payments to his ex-wife. By notice of assessment dated May 27, 2005 , the Minister disallowed that claim in its entirety.

The Appellant has appealed from the Minister's decision. Thus, the only issue to be decided is whether the $2,506 in legal fees incurred by the Appellant in contesting the amount of his support payments to his ex-wife, or ex-spouse, are deductible from his taxable income for the 2004 taxation year.

Legal fees incurred in negotiating or suing for a reduction in support are not deductible because the success of such an endeavour does not produce income from a business or property. Section 8 contains no provision permitting the deduction of such expenses from employment income (assuming that employment income exists) and paragraphs 60(o) and 60(o.1) do not permit the deduction of such legal fees either. In fact, it is my opinion that the Act contains no provision permitting such a deduction.

As for the constitutional argument, I cannot accept it because you did not notify the Attorneys General of the provinces and of Canada within the requisite time limits. In any event, even if s. 18(1)(a) could result in differential treatment, I am of the opinion that such a distinction would not be discriminatory.

Basically, if you feel that society should change, I believe that your pressure would more properly be brought to bear on Parliament. As for me, my hands are tied, and I do not see how I could help you. I can find no basis on which you could be permitted to deduct such expenses. There is no case law in support of your position, and I can find nothing in the Act that would permit the deduction of such expenses. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. 

I understand that you had a very difficult and painful experience. However, I am not Parliament. I would be overstepping my role if I issued a judgment based solely on the sympathy that you elicit, and it would essentially be pointless, because the Minister would appeal from my decision the following day and we would all have wasted our time. I cannot rule based on equity or on the sympathy that people's circumstances elicit. I understand that your experience has been painful.

Good day, then.

----------------------

 

Translation certified true

on this 20th day of July 2007.

 

Brian McCordick, Translator