http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/169123/index.do
Morrissey v. The Queen (July 27, 2016 – 2016 TCC 178, Sommerfeldt J.).
Précis: The taxpayer claimed the Canada Child Tax Benefit with respect to her son in 2012 and 2013. The Minister determined that she was a shared-custody parent of the boy and allowed her only 50% of the Credit. She appealed to the Tax Court. The Court, after a very careful review of the evidence, concluded that she was a shared-custody parent and dismissed the appeal. There was no award of costs as this was an informal procedure appeal.
Decision: The parsing of the facts and law in this decision is extremely thorough but in the end the entire matter is aptly summarized in the concluding paragraphs which find that, as a matter of fact, the child care duties were roughly split between Ms. Morrissey and her ex-spouse therefore entitling her to only 50% of the Benefit:
[65] It is my impression that both Ms. Morrissey and Mr. Murphy are loving and caring parents, and that they each have LM’s best interests at heart. These Reasons should not be construed as a criticism of the manner in which either Ms. Morrissey or Mr. Murphy cared for LM.
[66] In response to Mr. Murphy’s application to receive half of the CCTB and Ms. Morrissey’s claim to receive the entire CCTB, the Minister issued the Redeterminations, which determined that, during the Benefit Period, Ms. Morrissey and Mr. Murphy were shared-custody parents. Ms. Morrissey has the burden of demolishing the Minister’s assumed facts and proving that the Redeterminations are incorrect. Given the general, non-detailed nature of the oral testimony, the lack of documentary evidence and my finding in respect of the proportionate amount of time spent by Ms. Morrissey and Mr. Murphy respectively with LM, that burden has not been met. Ms. Morrissey has not proven on a balance of probabilities that she and Mr. Murphy were not residing with LM on a near equal basis.
[67] To reiterate I have found that the proportion of the time spent by Ms. Morrissey and Mr. Murphy respectively with LM was somewhere between a 59.38%/40.62% split and a 57.14%/42.86% split. As this range is not significantly different from the 57%/43% split in the Fortin and Levin cases and is relatively close to the 55%/45% split in the Brady case, I have concluded that, during the Benefit Period, Ms. Morrissey and Mr. Murphy resided with LM on a near equal basis and were shared-custody parents. Therefore, Ms. Morrissey’s Appeal is dismissed, without costs.