Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: April 2, 2020
Assessed Person(s): A.M.
Applicant(s): A.M.
Respondent(s): City of Mississauga
Property Location(s): Withheld
Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga
Roll Number(s): Withheld
Appeal Number(s): 3344367
Taxation Year(s): 2018
Hearing Event No.: 726685
Legislative Authority: Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25
APPEARANCES:
Parties A.M. City of Mississauga
Representative C.A. Sean Doyle, Barbara Malta
HEARD: January 9, 2020 in person
ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1A.M. (the “Applicant”) filed an application to the City of Mississauga (“City”) to have her 2018 taxes reduced, cancelled or refunded because she was unable to pay due either to sickness or extreme poverty, under s. 357.(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 as amended (“Act”).
2The City has passed a by-law, delegating its authority to determine such applications to the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) under s. 357(11) of the Act.
Issues
3The main issue before the Board is whether or not the Applicant’s 2018 property taxes should be cancelled, reduced or refunded due to her inability to pay because of sickness or extreme poverty. This requires the Board to determine:
- if the Applicant was unable to pay her 2018 property taxes; and
- if the Board determines she was unable to pay her property taxes, the Board must then determine if the reason she was unable to pay was either sickness or extreme poverty.
4Finally, if the Board determines that she was unable to pay because of sickness or extreme poverty, the Board must then decide on the amount of the property taxes levied in 2018 to be cancelled, reduced or refunded.
RESULT
5The Board finds that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that she was unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2018. The application is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Was the Applicant able to pay the property taxes levied in 2018?
6C.A. represented the Applicant in this application. He testified that the Applicant had a car accident in 2001 and had had difficulty working since. In 2018, the Applicant closed her hair salon business because of the effects of the 2001 accident and began free-lancing at another salon where she rented a chair.
7C.A. testified that the Applicant provides the regular services to her customers that would be expected at a hair salon, but she also operates a small retail operation, whereby she purchases items from retailers at a discount or when they are on sale and re-sells those items to customers.
8The documents at the hearing indicate total income from all sources for 2018 of $82,710. This income is derived from income tax refunds of $4,360, family and child support payments of $2,580, cash transfers from A.M.’s son of $4,524, provincial government support of $707, HST / GST rebates of $282, cash deposits from A.M.’s business activities of $60,257 and a $10,000 interest free cash advance on a MBNA Mastercard (“MC”) account.
9These deposits to the Applicant’s bank account reflect an average monthly income of $6,893. The single account used by the Applicant had a balance of $15,021 on January 2, 2018 and a balance of $13,431 on December 31, 2018.
10Monthly expenses reported by the Applicant for 2018 totaled approximately $7,991. These expenses are summarized as follows (all rounded to the nearest dollar):
a) Condominium fees: $582 b) Insurance: $242 c) Groceries and household supplies and clothing: $400 d) Car expenses: $300 e) Salon chair rental: $904 f) Cell phone, telephone, cable and internet: $150 g) Property taxes: $133 h) Capital One MC payments: $4,044 i) Hudson’s Bay MC payments: $140 j) MBNA MC Payments: $633; and, k) Undefined destination cash transfers: $463.
11The Applicant did not testify to any other financial liabilities or assets.
12The City did not take a position on whether or not the Applicant was unable to pay property taxes, as the City has delegated its authority on that decision to the Board. The taxes levied on the subject property for 2018 totaled $1,593.42.
13The City noted that the property taxes levied in 2018 were paid in full, and that after all of the annual expenses had been paid, the Applicant’s bank balance still exceeded $13,000. In the City’s view, this does not reflect the finances of a person who is unable to pay the property taxes.
Findings on Issue 1 - Ability to Pay
14The monthly income as reported is approximately $1,098 less that the total monthly expenses incurred by the Applicant in 2018. The discrepancy includes an average of $133 per month toward property taxes.
15The Applicant’s bank account showed a significant balance throughout the year. The discrepancy between the income and expense was not explained at the hearing. C.A. indicated a reluctance on the Applicant’s part to furnish the Board and the City with complete financial documentation. This hearing was already adjourned once to allow the Applicant to fully disclose the pertinent financial disclosure in support of her case.
16The most important omissions were statements from the Capital One and Hudson’s Bay MC accounts. Payments to these accounts over the year exceeded $50,000. There is no documentary evidence to show if these payments kept the accounts current or if there were ongoing balances.
17There were also no documents to show how the expenses claimed by the Applicant for food, car and utilities were paid. In any case, the Applicant’s submissions and testimony indicate that all of the primary life and household needs for she and her son were being met in 2018. In addition, the Applicant had a balance in her bank account exceeding $13,000, after the property taxes levied in 2018 were paid. This is strong evidence that the Applicant was able to pay all of her property taxes in 2018.
Remaining Issues
18The Applicant made no submissions with respect to a condition of sickness or extreme poverty that would have made her unable to pay the property taxes. The Board, having determined that she was able to pay, has no reason to make any decision as to the Applicant’s sickness or extreme poverty.
CONCLUSION
19The Board finds that the Applicant is meeting her monthly obligations, with additional financial resources available, after accounting for the full payment of property taxes. Accordingly, she has failed to demonstrate she was unable to pay the property taxes in 2018.
ORDER
20The Board orders that the application is dismissed.
“Dan Weagant”
DAN WEAGANT MEMBER Assessment Review Board A constituent tribunal of Tribunals Ontario - Environment and Land Division Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248