BETWEEN:
and
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on
Before: The Honourable Justice D.W. Beaubier
Appearances:
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the reassessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 2003 taxation years is dismissed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at
BETWEEN:
BRENDA KLASSEN,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[1] This appeal pursuant to the Informal Procedure was heard at
[2] The matters in dispute are set out in paragraphs 7 to 15 inclusive of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal. They read:
7. In computing her tax liability for the 2003 taxation year, the Appellant claimed, in the computation of her non-refundable tax credits and payable, an amount of $5,000.00 for tuition and education amounts transferred from a child (the “Transferred Amount”).
8. By letter dated
9. The Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) reassessed the Appellant for the 2003 taxation year to disallow the claim for the Transferred Amount as the University, which is located outside of
10. The Appellant filed a Notice of Objection to the reassessment, dated
11. The Minister confirmed the reassessment by means of a Notice of Confirmation dated
12. In so reassessing the Appellant for the 2003 taxation year and in so confirming that reassessment, the Minister made the same assumptions of fact, as follows:
(a) the Appellant claimed the Transferred Amount of $5,000.00 from Trevor;
(b) Trevor, the Appellant’s son, attended the University during the 2003 taxation year for 10 months on a full time basis from January through May and August through December;
(c) Trevor attended the University on a baseball scholarship;
(d) the University is located in
(e) Trevor was not enrolled in a course leading to a degree at a Bachelor’s level;
(f) the University does not grant degrees at the bachelor level or higher;
(g) the
(h) the University is not an extension of and is a separate educational institution from the
(i) Trevor’s tuition fees for the 2003 taxation year were $1,924.36US;
(j) Trevor’s eligible tuition fees and education amounts in respect of the University were nil; and
(k) the Appellant was not allowed the Transferred Amount for the University.
B. ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
13. The issue is whether the Appellant was entitled to the Transferred Amount under sections 118.81 and 118.9 of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) in the computation of her non-refundable tax credits for the 2003 taxation year.
C. STATUTORY PROVISIONS, GROUNDS RELIED ON
14. He relies on section 118.5, 118.6, 118.81 and 118.9 and subsection 248(1) of the Act as amended for the 2003 taxation year.
15. He submits that as the University attended by Trevor is not a designated educational institution, as defined in subsection 118.6(1) of the Act, Trevor is not entitled to the tuition amount under subsection 118.5(1) of the Act or the education amount under subsection 118.6(2) of the Act in respect of the University. Therefore, the Appellant was not entitled to the Transferred Amount under sections 118.81 and 118.9 of the Act in the computation of her non-refundable tax credits for the 2003 taxation year.
[3] Assumptions 12(a), (b), (c), (d), (g), (i) and (k) were not refuted. The remaining assumptions are in dispute.
[4] In the Reply, the Respondent describes as the “university”, the corporate body that Trevor attended namely, Minot State University-Bottineau Campus. But the Respondent states that it is not a degree granting institution, that is a “designated educational institution” within the Income Tax Act (“Act”).
[5] As the Appellant pointed out,
(a) has a Dean, whereas
(b) The North Dakota University system procedure sheet (Exhibit A-2) describes the two as “Minot State University” and “Minot State University – Bottineau Campus” (hereafter “MSU-Bottineau”).
(c) Each grants an “associate degree or equivalent” which the evidence indicates is a certificate indicating the successful completion of two university class years.
(d) The Appellant’s position is that MSU-Bottineau is merely a branch of
[6] Respondent’s counsel argued that MSU-Bottineau is a separate institution and pointed out that Appellant’s Exhibit A-3, the second page, states that MSU-Bottineau “provides traditional curriculum that transfer to baccalaureate programs”.
[7] The second page also states that in 1996 “the name of the school was changed to Minot State University-Bottineau Campus”. From this last statement it appears that it remained a separate corporate body and was not part of the
[8] Therefore, the Court finds that Minot State University-Bottineau Campus is not a degree granting institution and in particular it is not a “designated educational institution” within the meaning contained in the Act. In particular, the evidence is that it is a completely separate corporate body from
[9] For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.
Signed at
"D.W. Beaubier"
Beaubier, J.
COURT
PLACE OF HEARING:
DATE OF HEARING:
REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT BY: The Honourable Justice D.W. Beaubier
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
|
The Appellant herself
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Brooke Sittler
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
Firm:
For the Respondent: John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario