|
|
Les appelants ont fait valoir qu'ils ont payé 20 125,00 $ en TPS ainsi que 13 452,51 $ en TVF, dont un tiers, soit 4 484,17 $, leur a été remboursé à titre de remboursement de la TVF pour habitations neuves. Ils ont expliqué que le montant de 1 723,34 $ maintenant demandé correspond à la différence entre
|
|
|
The original issue in this appeal was whether the appellants were entitled, under paragraph 121(2)(e) of the Act, to an FST new housing rebate equal to two thirds of the estimated FST for the house which they purchased. At the hearing, however, the appellants abandoned that contention and essentially claimed that, since the purpose of the new housing rebate was to avoid double taxation and because they were paying Goods and Service Tax (GST) on the house, they were entitled to a full rebate of the FST. The appellants submitted that they had paid $20,125.00 in GST as well as $13,452.51 in FST, of which one third, or $4,484.17, was reimbursed as an FST new housing rebate. They explained that the amount of $1,723.34 that is now claimed is the difference between (1) the amount of FST for which they were ultimately liable, i.e. $8,395.83 (given the rebate of one third that they obtained), and (2) the amount that represents the discrepancy between the two taxes prior to the deduction of the FST rebate, i.e. $6,672.49, which difference, they said, amounts to double taxation. During cross-examination, Mr. Tsui admitted that the appellants received $7,245.00 as a GST rebate, but maintained that they are still entitled to $1,723.34 to avoid double taxation.
|
