| 21/8/2008 |
Bil-Malti
HOME
SERVICES
HELP
SEARCH
|
| Board of Special Commissioners - Cases |
| Case No. 5/50 |
Decided: 12 June, 1950 |
   |
|
No personal deduction allowed in respect of a child when he is not totally incapacitated; nor in respect of a relative who was not bereaved of the father - article 22(1)(b), Income Tax Act
|
Appellant claimed that she was due a deduction in respect of her son as he was incapacitated from work for medical reasons; she also claimed a deduction in respect of her nephew who was being wholly maintained by her as his father was unable to do so.
The Commissioner did not allow the deduction in respect of the son, as his incapacity to do any work had to be total not partial; the deduction in respect of the nephew was not allowed because the latter's father was still alive.
The Board held that the qualification for the article 22(1) deduction depended on the child being totally incapacitated from doing any work. In this case however, the child was only partially incapacitated and he could have employed himself in some work that did not require him to spend long stretches of time in a sedentary position.
Regarding the deduction in respect of the nephew the Board also agreed with the Commissioner that it was not enough that the nephew was wholly maintained by appellant. Nor was it enough that the child was a relative of taxpayer. Article 22 required also that the child is to have been orphaned by his father.
|
|
|
|
|