Yates v. Canada, 2009 FCA 50 (2009)

Extract

---

Yates v. Canada, 2009 FCA 50 (2009)

Date: 20090220

Docket: A-422-07

Citation: 2009 FCA 50

CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.

NADON J.A.

BLAIS J.A.

BETWEEN:

DEBRA YATES

Appellant and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

Heard at Toronto , Ontario, on December 4, 2008 .

Judgment delivered at Ottawa , Ontario, on February 20, 2009 .

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DESJARDINS J.A.

CONCURRING REASONS BY: NADON J.A.

CONCURRING REASONS BY: BLAIS J.A.

Date: 20090220

Docket: A-422-07

Citation: 2009 FCA 50

CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.

NADON J.A.

BLAIS J.A.

BETWEEN:

DEBRA YATES

Appellant and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Desjardins J.a.

[1] It is my view that the appeal should be dismissed. My reasons for this conclusion are the following.

[2] The facts are not in dispute. In brief, Mr. Yates had an outstanding tax liability, at all relevant times, in excess of $485,000. On December 23, 2002, he released his joint interest in two bank accounts for amounts of $4,972.30 and $2,406.45 in favour of his wife, the appellant. Also, as of December 23, 2002 , and throughout 2003, Mr. Yates deposited his paycheques for a total amount of $54,406.20 in a bank account owned by his wife. This account had been used by both to pay their household expenses for many years prior to December 23, 2002. The appellant customarily took care of these expenditures. Between December 23, 2002 , and October 31, 2003, the total household expenses set out by the appellant amounted to a total of $151,248.08. Mr. Yates filed for bankruptcy on February 16, 2004 .

[3] The Minister issued three reassessments against Ms. Yates under subsection 160(1) of the Income Tax Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5 th Supp.) (the Act) on September 12, 2004, for a total of $61,784.95.

[4] The Tax Court Judge whose judgment is reported as Yates and Her Majesty the Queen , 2007 TCC 498, [2007] T.C.J. No. 328 (QL), found at paragraph 12 of his reasons that, of the four requirements which must be satisfied under subsection 160(1) of the Act, only the following two were in question, namely that:...

See the full content of this document

If you are already a vLex customer, access here

---