Kiloh v. The Queen

Kiloh v. The Queen
Court (s) Database
Tax Court of Canada Judgments
Date
2003-05-13
Neutral citation
2003 TCC 329
File numbers
2002-1455(IT)I
Judges and Taxing Officers
David W. Beaubier
Subjects
Income Tax Act
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