http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/145453/index.do
Hayfron-Benjamin v. The Queen (June 10, 2016 – 2016 TCC 151, Sommerfeldt J.).
Précis: The taxpayer was assessed for unreported employment income in the amount of $5,759 in 2011. The taxpayer was able to establish on the evidence that the amount had been depostited to the bank account of his brother, Albert, and that the taxpayer had never been employed by the employer in question. There was no order as to costs.
Decision: The Court ultimately accepted the taxpayer’s assertion that he had not received the amounts in question or ever been employed by the employer in question:
[33] Based on the evidence of Ms. Di Pardo and the Direct-Deposit Document, it is clear that the remuneration paid by D+H for 2011 was deposited into a bank account belonging to Albert Hayfron-Benjamin and not to the Appellant. Furthermore, there is no allegation, pleading or conclusive evidence that Jonathan Hayfron-Benjamin directed D+H to pay remuneration ostensibly earned by him to Albert Hayfron-Benjamin.
[34] As I reviewed the signatures at the bottom of each of the signed Employment Documents, it seems to my untrained non-expert eye that the signatures are not all the same. As well, comparing the signatures on the Employment Documents with the signatures on the Adjustment Requests, it seems, again to my untrained non-expert eye, that some of the signatures on the Employment Documents have some similarity to, but are not the same as, the signatures on the Adjustment Requests. This suggests to me that it is plausible that someone who was misusing the Appellant’s SIN may have forged his signature on the Employment Documents. It would have been helpful to me if there had been expert handwriting evidence in this regard. Given that there was no such evidence and given that it is not my place to make a finding of forgery in the absence of such evidence, I do not base my decision on the apparent discrepancies in the signatures.
[35] Having considered the oral evidence, particularly that of Ms. Di Pardo, and having reviewed the documentary evidence, particularly the Direct-Deposit Document, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant did not receive the remuneration in the amount of $5,759.66 paid by D+H in 2011. …
[Footnote omitted]
There was no order as to costs.