ÿWPC  lkŸëV¥fÆÞü¹¨¸VÍ®|çNŸÊ^ûf7²+|q(éࣙH­úøz§>þû;Tè!ÙK>rôèLV&É~e¬‹¹Ëë¯?ÑB½9|€„¼²¿jv÷Ôx¯I˜q¡ò‰aGhR1u‹Â#|²xQtëêah½-Ü6¡Žô`Ê„R$è¯TðÚÅTCÑF‚ù¼l›’4çÕöðÍŸ4jÖ x vÆ\ø™‘—p˜èâjz…y³é»ºI~" —1ƒ0nseÓ—Œ9¸K9Œž ŠUе—ÈviÉ¥Ë.–ksDãèÄNú54=ÜÓçx5~ O6ÔNÕRD0Ýù3GEw¸‰k·7<”~õD?"Y Ÿ-Ô½Í49ìÚ™ÓÈúâ!-ºJXy§ÑýëVeÚ–lÊÓMŸ1J̶Û:Œ,€¾ÍOSk³>ÖÁɼ";(zÈ˱§LÓY~È*' ª¯¹‡oOý¤íjW(LÆ®‡þÔlJYÏàç1Yn®÷„¯¿ß*-iC *HZÆ2ÿå´ld*d©ü62åF¾lAùnòZ“e y73[ßqYµ 6d;i£Q@çš Oy#Ø ôq9ú¥!U>BÌ€ 0nL 0iº 0Y# 0_| 0&ÛU6 %7 = 0ÆM #Á UNÔ Ô M" (& NN ^ P w\ 4` t mv ô\  `‹&Times New Roman' United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurisprudence - 4nt - Jurisprudence - "Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   <ÿÿ:Default ParaÔ€ôôôÔÔ€XXXÔ< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓ6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô<qyÿÿ:HTML TypewriÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔÔS€ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÔ  Ô<þ6X9`(‹Courier New X#|x(žEµ$¡¡ÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ XvÈXX XÔÔ€XvÈXX XvÈÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regularq{ô* Äpì*,¸ ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ Eµ!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ Xz8XX XÔÔ€Xz8XX Xz8ÔÔÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòByrne€and€Ô_ÔLazarescuÔ_Ô€v.€CanadaóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€Nðð€742/1997Ð H˜ ÐÌ25€March€1999Ð  d ÐÌÔ_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/65/D/742/1997Ð à 0 ÐÌÌADMISSIBILITYó óÐ ’â  ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€Ms.€Pamela€R.€M.€Byrne€and€Ms.€Linda€E.€Ô_ÔLazarescuÔ_ԀРD”  ÐÌòòAlleged€victimsóó:€The€authors€Ð ` ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€Canada€Ð Ü, ÐÌòòDate€of€communicationóó:€23€April€1996€óóÐ ¨ø ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€CovenantÐ Zª Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€Ð @ ÐÌòòMeeting€onóó€25€March€1999,€Ð  \ ÐÌòòAdoptsóó€the€following:Ð Ø( ÐÌÌÓUÓòòò òDecision€on€admissibilityó óóóÐ Š Ú ÐÓÓÌÌ1.€The€authors€of€the€communication€are€Pamela€Rachelle€Mary€Byrne€and€Linda€EllenÐ <#Œ" ÐÔ_ÔLazarescuÔ_Ô.€They€claim€that€they€and€their€children€are€victims€of€a€violation€by€Canada€ofÐ "$r# Ðarticles€23,€24€and€26€of€the€Covenant.€Ð %X $ ÐÌòòThe€facts€as€submitted€by€the€authorsóó€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌ2.1€Mary€Byrne€separated€from€her€husband€in€1986€and€the€Court€ordered€her€husband€toÐ  (ð#( Ðpay€two€thirds€of€the€child's€living€expenses,€and€set€the€amount€at€ðð€575.00€per€month€inÐ †)Ö$) Ðchild€support.€The€author€states€that€she€pays€ðð€190.00€per€month€in€income€tax€over€thisÐ l*¼%* Ðamount,€pursuant€to€paragraph€56(1)(b)€of€the€Income€Tax€Act.€Her€husband,€on€the€otherÐ R+¢&+ Ðhand,€enjoys€a€tax€deduction€for€child€support€payments,€amounting€to€an€Income€TaxÐ 8,ˆ', ÐRefund€of€ðð€3,420.00€a€year,€pursuant€to€paragraph€60(b)€of€the€Income€Tax€Act.€Thus,€inÐ -n(- Ðpractice,€the€author€now€pays€ðð€490.00€of€the€child's€monthly€costs€of€living,€whereas€her€ex„Ð ° Ðhusband€in€reality€pays€only€ðð€290.00€per€month,€the€reverse€of€what€was€intended€by€theÐ –æ ÐCourt's€decision.€She€further€states€that€following€an€accident€in€1989€her€husband€receivesÐ |Ì Ððð€2,800.00€per€month€in€non„taxable€insurance€payments.€Ð b² ÐÌ2.2€Linda€Ô_ÔLazarescuÔ_Ô€separated€from€her€husband€in€1983,€and€the€Court€ordered€her€husbandÐ . ~ Ðto€pay€about€half€of€the€child's€maintenance€costs.€His€share€was€set€at€ðð€300.00€per€month.Ð  d ÐThe€author€explains€that€in€1991,€she€received€ðð€3,775.00€in€child€support€from€her€ex„Ð ú J Ðhusband.€Over€this€amount,€she€paid€ðð€1,245.75€of€taxes.€On€the€other€hand,€her€ex„husbandÐ à 0 Ðreceives€a€tax€refund€over€the€child€benefits€he€pays€of€about€ðð€1,585.50.€Putting€the€actualÐ Æ   Ðcosts€for€the€child€at€ðð€9,037.00€a€year,€she€concludes€that€she€pays€in€reality€ðð€7.437.75Ð ¬ ü  Ðtowards€maintenance€of€the€child,€far€more€than€the€50%€the€judge€intended€to€have€her€pay.€Ð ’â  ÐÌ2.3€The€authors€appealed€to€the€Tax€Court€in€1993,€against€the€inclusion€of€child€support€asÐ ^®  Ðtaxable€income.€On€18€March€1994,€the€judge€reserved€judgment,€awaiting€the€outcome€ofÐ D”  Ða€similar€case€at€the€Federal€Court,€submitted€by€Suzanne€Ô_ÔThibaudeauÔ_Ô.€In€May€1994,€theÐ *z  ÐFederal€Court€of€Appeal€found€in€Ô_ÔfavourÔ_Ô€of€Ô_ÔThibaudeauÔ_Ô,€judging€that€paragraph€56(1)(b)Ð ` Ðviolated€the€right€to€equality.€On€3€June€1994,€the€Tax€Court€found€in€Ô_ÔfavourÔ_Ô€of€the€authorsÐ öF Ðand€ruled€that€paragraph€56(1)(b)€of€the€Income€Tax€Act€violated€their€rights€under€theÐ Ü, ÐCanadian€Charter€of€Rights€and€Freedoms.€Subsequently,€the€authors€were€informed€thatÐ Â Ðtheir€cases€were€being€appealed€to€the€Federal€Court€of€Appeal.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌ2.4€In€the€meantime,€the€Government€appealed€the€judgment€in€the€case€of€Ô_ÔThibaudeauÔ_Ô€toÐ tÄ Ðthe€Supreme€Court.€On€25€May€1995,€the€Supreme€Court€decided€by€majority€decision€thatÐ Zª Ðparagraph€56(1)(b)€did€not€infringe€on€the€equality€rights€guaranteed€by€Section€15€of€theÐ @ ÐCharter.€On€25€March€1996,€the€Federal€Court,€bound€by€the€Supreme€Court's€decision€inÐ &v ÐÔ_ÔThibaudeauÔ_Ô,€found€against€the€authors.€Ð  \ ÐÌ2.5€On€18€May€1994,€Linda€Ô_ÔLazarescuÔ_Ô€had€filed€a€complaint€with€the€Canadian€HumanÐ Ø( ÐRights€Commission.€On€15€September€1995,€the€Human€Rights€Commission€informed€herÐ ¾ Ðthat,€considering€all€the€circumstances,€no€further€proceedings€were€warranted.€Ð ¤ô ÐÌ2.6€The€authors€state€that€on€6€March€1996,€the€Minister€of€Finance,€in€his€annual€BudgetÐ p!À  ÐSpeech,€promised€to€change€the€tax€system€concerning€child€support€contributions.€Ð V"¦! ÐÌòòThe€complaintóó€Ð "$r# ÐÌ3.€The€authors€claim€that€they€are€discriminated€against€because€of€their€status€as€custodialÐ î%>!% Ðmothers,€in€violation€of€articles€23,€paragraph€4,€and€26€of€the€Covenant.€They€further€claimÐ Ô&$"& Ðthat€the€present€Income€Tax€Act€fails€to€protect€the€child,€by€reducing€the€actual€amount€ofÐ º' #' Ðchild€support€paid€by€the€non„custodial€parent,€thereby€putting€the€child€at€an€economicÐ  (ð#( Ðdisadvantage€and€creating€financial€insecurity.€This€is€said€to€constitute€a€violation€of€articlesÐ †)Ö$) Ð23,€paragraph€4,€and€24,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant.€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌòòState€party's€observations€and€the€authors'€commentsóó€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð4.1€By€submission€of€17€December€1997,€the€State€party€argues€that€the€communication€isÐ ° Ðinadmissible,€since€the€authors€cannot€claim€to€be€victims€of€a€violation€of€the€Covenant,Ð –æ Ðsince€they€have€failed€to€exhaust€domestic€remedies€and€since€they€have€failed€toÐ |Ì Ðsubstantiate€their€claim.€Ð b² ÐÌ4.2€The€State€party€explains€that€one€of€the€principles€of€the€Canadian€income€tax€system€isÐ . ~ Ðthat€a€taxpayer's€taxable€income€is€determined€by€adding€together€all€of€his€or€her€sourcesÐ  d Ðof€income.€The€system€is€further€based€on€tax€equity,€meaning€that€taxpayers€in€similarÐ ú J Ðeconomic€situations€should€pay€the€same€amount€of€tax.€From€1942€until€1€May€1997,Ð à 0 ÐCanada's€tax€treatment€of€child€support€for€separated€parents€required€the€parent€receivingÐ Æ   Ðchild€support€to€include€the€amount€received€in€his€or€her€income€and€the€support€payingÐ ¬ ü  Ðparent€was€allowed€to€claim€the€amount€paid€as€deduction€(the€so„called€inclusion„deductionÐ ’â  Ðsystem).€According€to€the€State€party€this€tax€regime€met€the€requirements€of€tax€equity€byÐ xÈ  Ðensuring€that€custodial€parents€who€receive€child€support€pay€the€same€amount€of€incomeÐ ^®  Ðtax€as€custodial€parents€who€do€not€receive€support€and€who€support€their€children€withÐ D”  Ðequivalent€income€drawn€from€other€sources.€Ð *z  ÐÌ4.3€The€State€party€submits€that€this€system€also€sought€to€increase€the€available€resourcesÐ öF Ðthat€could€be€used€for€the€benefit€of€the€children€by€'income„splitting',€transferring€incomeÐ Ü, Ðto€a€member€of€the€family€so€that€the€income€may€be€taxed€in€the€hands€of€the€other€at€aÐ Â Ðlower€rate.€According€to€the€State€party,€this€transfer€resulted€in€a€net€tax€savings€for€theÐ ¨ø Ðcouple€where€the€recipient€parent€was€subject€to€a€lower€marginal€tax€rate.€The€majority€ofÐ ŽÞ Ðcustodial€parents€are€said€to€have€Ô_ÔbenefitedÔ_Ô€from€this.€Pursuant€to€provincial€family€law,Ð tÄ Ðlawyers€and€judges€were€supposed€to€consider€the€tax€consequences€(by€"grossing„up"€theÐ Zª Ðamount€to€account€for€the€tax€consequences)€when€determining€the€level€of€child€supportÐ @ Ðawarded.€The€State€party€acknowledges,€however,€that€parents,€lawyers€and€judges€have€notÐ &v Ðalways€fully€or€accurately€accounted€for€the€tax€consequences€in€determining€child€supportÐ  \ Ðamounts.€Ð òB ÐÌ4.4€The€State€party€explains€that€child€support€paid€under€orders€or€agreements€made€on€orÐ ¾ Ðafter€1€May€1997,€is€no€longer€taxed€as€income€to€the€recipient€or€tax€deductible€for€theÐ ¤ô Ðpayer.€For€those€orders€made€prior€to€1€May€1997,€parents€may€consent€to€the€applicationÐ Š Ú Ðof€the€new€rules.€If€mutual€consent€cannot€be€obtained,€then€either€party€may€apply€to€a€courtÐ p!À  Ðto€vary€their€order€or€agreement€so€that€the€new€rules€apply.€In€this€connection,€the€StateÐ V"¦! Ðparty€submits€that€it€would€have€been€manifestly€unfair€to€have€retroactively€applied€the€newÐ <#Œ" Ðtax€rules€to€existing€child€support€arrangements.€Ð "$r# ÐÌ4.5€The€State€party€argues€that€the€issue€raised€by€the€communication€is€moot€since€the€taxÐ î%>!% Ðsystem€has€changed€and€the€authors€may€apply€for€the€new€rules€to€be€applied€to€them.€TheÐ Ô&$"& ÐState€party€points€out€that€this€change€was€announced€before€the€authors€submitted€theirÐ º' #' Ðcommunication€to€the€Committee.€According€to€the€State€party,€any€alleged€inconsistencyÐ  (ð#( Ðwith€the€Covenant€has€been€corrected€and€the€authors€are€no€victims€of€a€violation€of€a€rightÐ †)Ö$) Ðunder€the€Covenant.€In€this€connection,€the€State€party€refers€to€the€Committee's€decisionsÐ l*¼%* Ðin€communications€Nos.€478/1991òò€1óó€and€501/1992òò€2óó.€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌ4.6€In€so€far€the€authors€argue€that€despite€the€change€in€law,€they€should€be€entitled€toÐ -n(- Ðcompensation€for€the€allegedly€discriminatory€scheme,€the€State€party€argues€that€there€isÐ ° Ðno€automatic€right€to€compensation€under€the€Covenant€and€that€the€measures€taken€by€theÐ –æ ÐGovernment€have€provided€a€sufficient€remedy€to€the€authors.€In€this€context,€the€State€partyÐ |Ì Ðnotes€also€that€under€Canadian€constitutional€law,€if€legislation€is€found€to€be€contrary€to€theÐ b² ÐCharter,€the€appropriate€remedy€is€to€declare€the€provision(s)€of€no€force,€but€as€a€generalÐ H˜ Ðrule,€damages€or€compensation€are€not€awarded.€Ð . ~ ÐÌ4.7€The€State€party€notes€that€the€facts€as€submitted€by€the€authors€reveal€a€concern€aboutÐ ú J Ðthe€adequacy€of€child€support€awarded€to€them€in€the€light€of€the€tax€consequences.€TheÐ à 0 ÐState€party€submits€that€under€Canadian€family€law,€if€a€custodial€parent€feels€that€theÐ Æ   Ðamount€of€child€support€originally€granted€by€a€court€is€no€longer€sufficient,€he€or€she€mayÐ ¬ ü  Ðapply€to€a€court€for€a€variance€of€the€child€support€amount.€The€State€party€notes€that€theÐ ’â  Ðauthors€have€sought€such€variances€in€the€past,€but€failed€to€do€so€in€respect€of€the€presentÐ xÈ  Ðclaim.€Accordingly,€the€State€party€argues€that€the€authors€have€failed€to€exhaust€allÐ ^®  Ðdomestic€remedies€available€to€them.€Ð D”  ÐÌ4.8€The€State€party€further€argues€that€the€authors€have€not€sufficiently€substantiated€theirÐ ` Ðclaim€by€showing€a€òòprima€facieóó€case€that€the€former€tax€system€violated€article€26€of€theÐ öF ÐCovenant.€In€this€connection,€the€State€party€refers€to€the€Committee's€standardÐ Ü, Ðjurisprudence€that€a€differentiation€based€on€reasonable€and€objective€criteria€does€notÐ Â Ðamount€to€prohibited€discrimination.€The€State€party€also€refers€to€the€Committee's€decisionÐ ¨ø Ðin€communication€No.€129/1982òò€3óó,€where€the€Committee€held€that€the€assessment€of€taxableÐ ŽÞ Ðincome€is€not€in€itself€a€matter€covered€by€the€Covenant€and€where€there€is€no€evidenceÐ tÄ Ðsubstantiating€a€claim€of€discrimination€with€respect€to€such€assessment,€the€communicationÐ Zª Ðis€incompatible€with€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant€and€inadmissible.€Ð @ ÐÌ4.9€The€State€party€also€refers€to€the€Committee's€jurisprudence€that€Ô_ÔunfavourableÔ_Ô€results€inÐ  \ Ðthe€application€of€general€rules€do€not€constitute€discrimination.€In€this€context,€the€StateÐ òB Ðparty€argues€that€in€the€area€of€financial€and€social€benefit€legislation€distinctions€are€oftenÐ Ø( Ðnecessary€and€desirable€to€achieve€a€just€and€proper€distribution€of€State€revenue,€asÐ ¾ ÐÔ_ÔrecognisedÔ_Ô€by€the€Committee€in€the€past.€Ð ¤ô ÐÌ4.10€The€State€party€denies€the€authors'€statement€that€it€has€indirectly€admitted€violatingÐ p!À  Ðtheir€rights€by€making€changes€to€the€Income€Tax€Act.€It€states€that€the€changes€were€madeÐ V"¦! Ðfor€policy€reasons,€and€a€decision€to€amend€a€law€does€not€imply€that€the€law€was€necessarilyÐ <#Œ" Ðincompatible€with€the€Covenant.€Ð "$r# ÐÌ4.11€According€to€the€State€party,€the€authors€have€not€substantiated€how€theÐ î%>!% Ðinclusion/deduction€scheme€violates€article€26.€To€the€extent€that€the€scheme€differentiatedÐ Ô&$"& Ðbetween€custodial€and€non„custodial€parents,€the€State€party€submits€that€such€differentiationÐ º' #' Ðwas€reasonable€and€justified.€In€this€context,€it€explains€that€the€intent€of€the€scheme€was€toÐ  (ð#( Ðachieve€tax€savings€for€separated€and€divorced€couples€by€having€the€child€support€amountÐ †)Ö$) Ðtaxed€in€the€hands€of€the€recipient,€who€was€generally€in€a€lower€tax€bracket.€The€incomeÐ l*¼%* Ðsplitting€sought€to€lessen€the€economic€consequences€of€marital€breakdown€and€to€free€upÐ R+¢&+ Ðmore€resources€for€children,€as€recognised€by€the€majority€of€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐMoreover,€by€permitting€a€deduction€for€the€child€support€payer,€the€payer€was€encouragedÐ -n(- Ðto€make€the€payments€and€had€greater€resources€to€do€so.€Ð ° ÐÌ4.12€The€State€party€acknowledges€that€in€Canada€the€vast€majority€of€custodial€parents€areÐ |Ì Ðwomen€and€that€there€are€significant€problems€in€ensuring€that€the€non„custodial€parents€liveÐ b² Ðup€to€their€child€support€obligations.€The€State€party€also€acknowledges€that€there€are€seriousÐ H˜ Ðfinancial€consequences€due€to€marital€breakdown€and€that€judges€and€lawyers€do€not€alwaysÐ . ~ Ðdetermine€adequate€amounts€for€child€support.€However€significant€these€problems€may€be,Ð  d Ðtheir€root€causes€do€not€lie€with€the€tax€treatment€of€child€support,€according€to€the€StateÐ ú J Ðparty.€Ð à 0 ÐÌ4.13€With€regard€to€the€authors'€argument€that€they€are€paying€a€disproportionate€share€ofÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€costs€associated€with€raising€their€children,€the€State€party€notes€that€this€result€likely€hasÐ ’â  Ðmore€to€do€with€inflationary€costs€and€changes€in€the€financial€circumstances€of€their€formerÐ xÈ  Ðspouses€than€with€the€tax€treatment€of€child€support.€The€State€party€reiterates€that€where€aÐ ^®  Ðparent€feels€that€she€is€paying€un€unfair€share€of€child€support,€she€may€apply€to€court€toÐ D”  Ðhave€the€child€support€award€varied€to€achieve€a€fairer€result.€The€State€party€concludes€thatÐ *z  Ðthe€application€of€the€Income€Tax€Act€to€the€authors'€cases€does€not€amount€to€a€violationÐ ` Ðof€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€If€the€inclusion/deduction€system€created€a€difference€inÐ öF Ðtreatment,€this€differentiation€is€said€to€have€been€based€on€reasonable€and€objective€criteria.€Ð Ü, ÐÌ4.14€The€State€party€submits€that€the€authors€have€not€in€any€way€substantiated€their€claimÐ ¨ø Ðunder€articles€23€and€24€of€the€Covenant.€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌ5.1€In€reply€to€the€State€party's€submission,€the€authors€maintain€that€their€communicationÐ Zª Ðis€admissible.€They€state€that€they€have€given€the€State€party€every€opportunity€to€correct€theÐ @ Ðinjustice€of€the€taxation€of€child€support.€The€new€legislation€does€not€address€the€pastÐ &v Ðinjustice€to€custodial€mothers,€since€if€they€want€to€change€the€terms€of€the€supportÐ  \ Ðagreement,€they€would€have€to€return€to€Court,€at€substantial€cost.€They€maintain€thereforeÐ òB Ðthat€they€are€victims€of€violations€by€the€State€party.€Ð Ø( ÐÌ5.2€Further,€they€submit€that€they€have€exhausted€all€domestic€remedies.€They€state€that€theyÐ ¤ô Ðare€not€willing€to€enter€into€new€arrangements€with€their€ex„husbands€for€the€sole€purposeÐ Š Ú Ðof€a€variance€for€taxation.€In€this€context,€they€argue€that€the€money€which€is€given€by€theirÐ p!À  Ðex„husbands€is€for€the€support€of€their€children€and€should€therefore€not€count€as€taxableÐ V"¦! Ðincome.€Moreover,€they€submit€that€a€variance€at€this€time€would€lower€the€supportÐ <#Œ" Ðpayments€substantially,€in€accordance€with€the€new€Child€Support€Guidelines€developed€byÐ "$r# Ðthe€State€party€under€the€new€law.€They€further€argue€that€they€can€ill€afford€the€legal€feesÐ %X $ Ðassociated€with€a€court€action.€Ð î%>!% ÐÌ5.3€Ms.€Ô_ÔLazarescuÔ_Ô€states€that€her€son€is€now€living€on€his€own,€and€that€she€no€longerÐ º' #' Ðreceives€child€support€payments.€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ5.4€The€authors€conclude€that€the€State€party€has€admitted€the€discrimination€under€the€oldÐ l*¼%* Ðlaw€by€changing€it.€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌòòIssues€and€proceedings€before€the€Committeeóó€Ð -n(- Ї6.1€Before€considering€any€claim€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€RightsÐ ° ÐCommittee€must,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€rules€of€procedure,€decide€whether€or€notÐ –æ Ðit€is€admissible€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.€Ð |Ì ÐÌ6.2€The€Committee€notes€that€the€authors€claim€that€the€tax€system€applied€to€them,€whichÐ H˜ Ðtaxes€child€support€payments€as€income,€is€discriminatory,€since€it€results€in€them€payingÐ . ~ Ðmore€towards€the€costs€of€raising€the€children€than€their€former€spouses.€The€State€party€onÐ  d Ðthe€other€hand,€has€argued€that€the€system€is€not€discriminatory€and€aims€at€making€moreÐ ú J Ðmoney€available€for€child€support€payments.€Be€this€as€it€may,€the€law€in€question€has€beenÐ à 0 Ðamended€by€the€State€party€and€the€tax€system€at€issue€in€this€communication€has€beenÐ Æ   Ðremoved€for€maintenance€agreements€as€of€1€May€1997,€whereas€custodial€parents€whoÐ ¬ ü  Ðreceive€child€support€payments€as€a€result€of€an€agreement€of€before€that€date,€can€apply€toÐ ’â  Ðthe€Court€for€a€variance€of€the€agreement€in€accordance€with€the€new€tax€system.€TheÐ xÈ  Ðauthors€have€declined€to€make€use€of€this€opportunity€because€of€the€costs€involved€and€alsoÐ ^®  Ðbecause€of€their€estimation€that€the€child€support€payments€under€the€new€system€wouldÐ D”  Ðamount€to€less€than€what€they€hitherto€received.€Ð *z  ÐÌ6.3€The€Committee€notes€that€the€authors'€main€grievance€is€that€as€a€result€of€taxation€theyÐ öF Ðhave€paid€more€towards€the€maintenance€of€the€child€than€their€former€spouses.€TheÐ Ü, ÐCommittee€observes€that€the€proportional€contributions€of€parents€in€paying€childÐ Â Ðmaintenance€are€set€by€the€Family€Court,€not€by€the€tax€authorities.€In€the€opinion€of€theÐ ¨ø ÐCommittee€the€alleged€unequal€payments€in€the€authors'€cases€were€the€result€of€theÐ ŽÞ Ðinteraction€between€the€child€support€order€providing€for€the€payments€and€the€applicationÐ tÄ Ðof€the€Income€Tax€Act.€This€is€to€be€taken€into€account€by€the€Court€in€determining€the€levelÐ Zª Ðof€payments.€It€is€not€for€the€Committee€to€reevaluate€the€determination€of€payments€by€theÐ @ Ðdomestic€Courts.€In€this€context,€the€Committee€notes€that€if€the€Court€did€not€take€the€taxÐ &v Ðconsequences€into€account,€as€has€been€suggested€by€the€authors,€the€authors€could€haveÐ  \ Ðapplied€for€a€variance€of€the€order€on€this€basis.€Ð òB ÐÌ6.4€The€Committee€concludes€that€the€facts€submitted€by€the€authors€do€not€substantiate€theirÐ ¾ Ðclaim€that€they€have€been€a€victim€of€a€violation€of€article€26,€nor€of€articles€23€and€24€ofÐ ¤ô Ðthe€Covenant.€Ð Š Ú ÐÌ7.€Accordingly,€the€Committee€decides:€Ð V"¦! ÐÌa)€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€under€article€2€of€the€Optional€Protocol;€Ð "$r# ÐÌb)€that€this€decision€shall€be€communicated€to€the€State€party€and€to€the€authors.€Ð î%>!% ÐÌ____________€Ð º' #' ÐÌ*The€following€members€of€the€Committee€participated€in€the€examination€of€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðcommunication:€Mr.€Ô_ÔAbdelfattahÔ_Ô€Amor,€Mr.€Ô_ÔNisukeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAndoÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Ô_ÔPrafullachandraÔ_Ô€N.Ð l*¼%* ÐÔ_ÔBhagwatiÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Th.€Ô_ÔBuergenthalÔ_Ô,€Lord€Ô_ÔColvilleÔ_Ô,€Ms.€Elizabeth€Ô_ÔEvattÔ_Ô,€Ms.€Pilar€Ô_ÔGaitnÔ_Ô€deÐ R+¢&+ ÐÔ_ÔPomboÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Ô_ÔEckartÔ_Ô€Klein,€Mr.€David€Ô_ÔKretzmerÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Ô_ÔRajsoomerÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔLallahÔ_Ô,€Ms.€Cecilia€MedinaÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÔ_ÔQuirogaÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Fausto€Ô_ÔPocarÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Martin€Ô_ÔScheininÔ_Ô,€Mr,€Ô_ÔHipð;ðlitoÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSolariÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔYrigoyenÔ_Ô,€Mr.€RomanÐ -n(- ÐÔ_ÔWieruszewskiÔ_Ô€and€Mr.€Ô_ÔAbdallahÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔZakhiaÔ_Ô.Ð ° ÐÐ Ðòò**óó/€Pursuant€to€rule€85€of€the€rules€of€procedure,€Committee€member€Ô_ÔMr.MaxwellÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔYaldenÔ_ÔÐ |Ì Ðdid€not€participate€in€the€examination€of€the€present€communication.€Ð b² ÐÌ1/€€Ô_ÔòòA.P.L.Ô_Ô€Ô_Ôv.d.M.Ô_Ô€v.€the€Netherlandsóó,€declared€inadmissible€on€26€July€1993.Ð . ~ ÐÌ2/€€Ô_ÔòòJ.H.W.Ô_Ô€v.€the€Netherlandsóó,€declared€inadmissible€on€16€July€1993.Ð ú J ÐÌ3/€€Ô_ÔòòI.M.Ô_Ô€v.€Norwayóó,€declared€inadmissible€on€6€April€1983.Ð Æ   ÐÌ