Zhang v. Canada
Court headnote
Zhang v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2008-05-28 Neutral citation 2008 FCA 198 File numbers A-522-07 Decision Content Date: 20080528 Docket: A-522-07 Citation: 2008 FCA 198 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. NADON J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: WENCHENG ZHANG Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on May 28, 2008. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on May 28, 2008. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A. Date: 20080528 Docket: A-522-07 Citation: 2008 FCA 198 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. NADON J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: WENCHENG ZHANG Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on May 28, 2008) NADON J.A. [1] We have not been persuaded, on the record before us, that Madam Justice Sheridan made any error, either of fact or law, in concluding that the amount deductible by the appellant under paragraph 126(1)(a) of the Income tax Act was $4,159.00. [2] In our view, in order to succeed on his argument that the child tax credit under United States tax legislation should not have been considered in the determination of the tax paid in the United States, the appellant was required to adduce expert evidence with respect to United States tax legislation and more particularly with respect to the child tax credit under that legislation. [3] Before the Tax Court the appellant called as its expert witness an American accountant, Mr. Max Kos…
Read full judgment
Zhang v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2008-05-28 Neutral citation 2008 FCA 198 File numbers A-522-07 Decision Content Date: 20080528 Docket: A-522-07 Citation: 2008 FCA 198 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. NADON J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: WENCHENG ZHANG Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on May 28, 2008. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on May 28, 2008. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A. Date: 20080528 Docket: A-522-07 Citation: 2008 FCA 198 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. NADON J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: WENCHENG ZHANG Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on May 28, 2008) NADON J.A. [1] We have not been persuaded, on the record before us, that Madam Justice Sheridan made any error, either of fact or law, in concluding that the amount deductible by the appellant under paragraph 126(1)(a) of the Income tax Act was $4,159.00. [2] In our view, in order to succeed on his argument that the child tax credit under United States tax legislation should not have been considered in the determination of the tax paid in the United States, the appellant was required to adduce expert evidence with respect to United States tax legislation and more particularly with respect to the child tax credit under that legislation. [3] Before the Tax Court the appellant called as its expert witness an American accountant, Mr. Max Koss, whose evidence the judge did not give much weight to because of her view that he was unable to provide a useful opinion with regard to the relevant provisions of United States tax legislation which, she pointed out, were not in evidence before her. [4] Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed but without costs. “M. Nadon” J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-522-07 (AN APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE TAX COURT OF CANADA, DATED OCTOBER 24, 2007, WHEREBY THE REASSESSMENT WAS DISMISSED, IN FILE NO. 2005-3867 (IT) I.) STYLE OF CAUSE: WENCHENG ZHANG v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: MAY 28, 2008 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: (LINDEN, NADON & SEXTON JJ.A.) DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: NADON J.A. DATED: MAY 28, 2008 APPEARANCES: JOHN MILL, LL.M FOR THE APPELLANT ANDREW MILLER STEVEN LECKIE FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: MILL PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WINDSOR, ONTARIO FOR THE APPELLANT JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C. DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA OTTAWA, ONTARIO FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca