The Chairman (orally: March 13, 1978) [TRANSLATION]:—The appeal of Mr Fouad Zaki against a tax assessment for the 1975 taxation year.
Mr Zaki claimed a tax exemption of $1,292 for dependents in 1975. The Minister has disallowed this claim, and, as advanced by counsel for the respondent, both in his answer to the notice of appeal and in his argument, there appear to be three main grounds.
This appeal comes under chapter 63, paragraph 109(1)(f) of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1970-71-72, as amended. I believe that counsel for the respondent has claimed, or at any rate has not disputed, that the sum of $1,292 may have been sent to Egypt, and the document which you have, a sworn statement to the effect that this sum was in fact sent, I accept as such. Nor do I question the two medical certificates which the appellant has produced as evidence that the sum of money sent to Egypt was for his mother, who is claimed to be sixty-five years old, and for his sister, who suffered a nervous breakdown on the death of her husband. There have been precedents in case law in which members of the Board have seen fit to reject documents not formally sworn before a justice of the peace; however, I do not contest the validity of these two certificates, very probably signed by a doctor, although they have not been sworn. What has drawn my attention is the content of these certificates. As regards your mother, the certificate simply states that she is sixty-five years old. I am under the very strong impression that section 109 of the Income Tax Act refers specifically to “his parent or grandparent and dependent by reason of mental or physical infirmity’. This, in my opinion, goes much further than mere old age at sixty-five. Had she been ninety or crippled, she might have been considered a dependent under the Act, but no evidence has been offered other than the mere fact of age. To my mind, this section of the Act, which must be applied very restrictively, does not include among the infirm any person sixty-five years of age; therefore, I do not think that this section of the Act applies in this case, and I am obliged, in the circumstances, to dismiss the appeal.
With respect to the appellant’s sister, it is possible that the shock occasioned by her husband’s death brought on a nervous breakdown. It is also possible to consider her case as one of mental infirmity for that period of time. However, as well as requiring that the person to whom money is sent be physically or mentally infirm, the appellant must also show that such person was solely dependent on him; in your sister’s case, there is no such evidence that she was dependent on you at that time. In fact, her children were of university age, and able to work and contribute to her support. The conclusion must therefore be drawn that the point at issue here is not your sister’s mental infirmity, but the fact that she was not dependent on you. I am therefore obliged in this instance as well to dismiss the appeal. Overall, the Income Tax Act does not allow me to grant you the remedy you seek, and I am obliged to apply the Act and dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.