The Chairman:—Appeal from an income tax assessment relating to 1968. It was heard at Toronto where the appellant, now 30 years of age, resides and is employed by Griffith Laboratories Ltd as a maintenance mechanic. In the year mentioned his declared income was slightly over $7,500 and from this sum he purported to deduct $2,000 for married status, $550 in respect of two very young daughters, Claudine and Dianne, living in Jamaica and $300 regarding a brother then 23 years of age who was said to be attending university on that island. The Minister, in July 1969, disallowed all these deductions and, instead, granted the appellant an exemption of $1,000 under paragraph 26(1 )(b) of the Income Tax Act. This appeal duly ensued.
The Minister’s reasons for the action taken by him are tritely stated to be as follows:
(a) the appellant was single;
(b) Dianne Johnson is not the appellant’s child;
(c) there is no such person as Claudine Johnson;
(d) the appellant sent no money to Lloyd Johnson in 1968.
These are rather startling allegations on the respondent’s part, but he has set them forth fully in black and white and the appellant was faced squarely with them and knew exactly, and with ample notice, what was in issue.
He, and no one else, gave evidence, either oral or documentary. His testimony was a general denial of (a), (b), (c) and (d), above, but I did not find him either reliable or satisfactory as a witness. His evidence lacked any ring of truthfulness. It was acknowledged that the so-described daughters were under the roof of someone in Jamaica and that this part of the maintenance, at least, was provided by some person other than the appellant. Also, he produced no acceptable documentary evidence whatsoever in even partial refutation of the respondent’s allegations and what little he had to say left me quite unconvinced that the assessment involved was in any way incorrect. The brother, furthermore, because of his age alone could not be the subject of a deduction under paragraph 26(1 )(d).
The entire appeal was most unsatisfactory from the Board’s standpoint and lacked any merit, and, as was stated at the hearing’s conclusion, it only may be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.