Ontario Dad Loses Tax Deduction Case - CRA.SOTW
Alan Baggett
If you’re unfamiliar with this weeks Tax Tale you may want to take a
moment to review the background:
Divorced Father Fights Taxman for Denying Deduction
http://groups.google.com/group/tor.news/browse_thread/thread/c5fb3e51bbc3d175/174b7228dfd1e507?lnk=st&q=#174b7228dfd1e507
Commentary re: Divorced Father Fights the Taxman
http://groups.google.com/group/can.taxes/browse_thread/thread/3fbcb74a230b614d/b45293ba7bbe9cde?lnk=st&q=#b45293ba7bbe9cde
Final Words on the Once Married Canadian Male
http://groups.google.com/group/niagara.general/browse_thread/thread/fe3c7be1e942a69b/e1f8d55e3aa31dcc?lnk=st&q=#e1f8d55e3aa31dcc
Ontario dad loses tax deduction case
Don Butler , Canwest News Service
Published: Wednesday, July 23, 2008
OTTAWA - George Calogeracos has lost his fight to overturn a section
of the Income Tax Act he says discriminates against divorced dads like
him who share custody of their children and pay child support.
The 52-year-old Ottawa area cook and father of two went to tax court
last month, arguing the Canada Revenue Agency violated his charter
rights by denying his claim for the "equivalent to spouse" deduction
for one of his daughters on his 2006 tax return.
At the time, Calogeracos was paying $358 a month in child support to
his ex-wife, with whom he then shared custody of their daughters. He
now has full custody.
According to the law, anyone who pays child support is ineligible to
claim the deduction, which would have reduced Calogeracos' federal tax
payable in 2006 by as much as $1,145.
Since the vast majority of support payers are male, that amounts to de
facto discrimination against men, Calogeracos argued.
But in a written ruling this month, tax court Judge Wyman Webb
rejected Calogeracos' arguments.
Calogeracos had argued the law compromised his financial security,
violating Section 7 of the charter, which guarantees the right to
life, liberty and security of the person.
But Webb noted Calogeracos testified he might use the extra money for
a family vacation, "not that the refund was necessary for human
survival."
Calogeracos also argued the tax act section violates the charter's
guarantee of equality before the law, because it predominantly affects
men.
Webb conceded "in joint custody situations it is generally, by a
significant margin, the male who is paying child support." But he
observed that the Income Tax Act makes no distinction between males
and females.
"The fact that in most joint or shared custody arrangements it is the
male who is making child support payments cannot be grounds for a
claim of discrimination by the Appellant, as males who make more money
than females are not in a disadvantaged position in Canadian society."
Webb also pointed out that federal child support guidelines are partly
based on the fact that payers of child support are ineligible for the
deduction.
Given that Calogeracos' support payments likely would have been higher
if he were entitled to claim the deduction, "it is difficult to
determine how he is prejudiced," Webb said.
Though Calogeracos could appeal the ruling, he's leaning against that,
he said on Wednesday, because of the time and expense involved.
"I'm going to spend the summer with my girls. They're the most
important thing in my life."
© Canwest News Service 2008
---------------------------------------------------
Miss a Tax Tale Miss a lot!
Follow the link to the complete CRA SOTW Library!
http://canada.revenue.agency.angelfire.com
--------------------------------------------------
Alan Baggett – Tax Collector’s Bible