[3]
The appellant did not file a notice of objection
to the reassessment made on January 31, 2014, within the time limit, which
was May 1, 2014, for the 2012 taxation year.
[4]
The evidence shows that the appellant did not
submit, within the time limit, that is, May 1, 2015, an application for an
extension of time to file a notice of objection for the 2012 taxation year.
[5]
On May 1, 2014, the Minister sent the
appellant a notification indicating that no federal tax was owing for the 2013
taxation year. The notification reflected the following changes:
|
Title
|
Reported
|
Revised
|
|
Employment insurance
benefits
|
$0
|
$5,377
|
|
Tuition, education
and textbook amounts
|
$6,206
|
$11,584
|
[6]
On April 16, 2015, the Minister sent the
appellant an initial Notice of Assessment for the 2014 taxation year in which
it reduced the tuition, education and textbook amounts from $3,305 to $0, the
deduction of which had been claimed by the appellant.
[7]
On or around February 8, 2016, the
appellant filed an objection to that assessment with the Minister.
[8]
On July 18, 2016, the Minister signed the
assessment dated April 16, 2015, for the 2014 taxation year.
[9]
In order to make a notice of assessment for
2014, the Minister relied on the following facts:
a)
as at January 1, 2012,
the balance available for carrying forward the tuition, education and textbook
amounts was $11,960;
b)
for the 2012 taxation
year, the tuition, education and textbook amounts were $7,355;
c)
for the 2012 taxation
year, the appellant transferred $5,000 under the tuition, education and
textbook amounts to a parent;
d)
based on various
corrections made to the appellant’s income for the 2012 taxation year, the
appellant was required to claim an amount of $4,803 as tuition, education and
textbook amounts to maintain her federal tax owing at zero;
e)
the $1,286 in moving
expenses were disallowed by the Minister since the appellant, being a student,
had no income from scholarships, fellowships, bursaries, prizes and study
grants (awards);
f)
as at January 1,
2013, the balance available for carrying forward the tuition, education and
textbook amounts was $9,512;
g)
for the 2013 taxation
year, the tuition, education and textbook amounts were $3,707;
h)
based on various
corrections made to the appellant’s income for the 2013 taxation year, the
appellant was required to claim an amount of $11,584 as tuition, education and
textbook amounts to maintain her federal tax owing at zero;
i)
based on the
corrections made, the amount transferred by the appellant to a parent was
changed from $3,707 to $1,635 for the 2013 taxation year;
j)
for the 2014 taxation
year, the tuition, education and textbook amounts was $0;
k)
as at January 1, 2014,
the balance available for carrying forward the tuition, education and textbook
amounts was $0, as detailed below;
|
Year
|
Previous amount not applied (January 1)
|
Tuition amount Education and textbook amounts
|
Amount applied from current year
|
Amount transferred
|
Amount applied from previous year
|
Carry forward amount available (December 31)
|
|
2012
|
$11,960
|
$7,355
|
$0
|
($5,000)
|
($4,803)
|
$9,512
|
|
2013
|
$9,512
|
$3,707
|
($2,072)
|
($1,635)
|
($9,512)
|
$0
|
|
2014
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
[10]
At the start of the hearing, the respondent
filed a motion to obtain an order that would set aside the appeals for the 2012
and 2013 taxation years for the following reasons: regarding the 2012 taxation
year, the appellant did not file a notice of objection to the reassessment, and
regarding the 2013 taxation year, there was notification from the Minister that
no federal tax was owing for said year.
[11]
The evidence shows that the facts alleged by the
respondent in support of its motion are true. It is well established that this
Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal when the appealing party has not
filed a proper notice of objection within the prescribed time limit. It is also
well established that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear an appeal from
a zero assessment. For these reasons, the appeals by the appellant for the 2012
and 2013 taxation years are set aside.
[12]
I also note that the appellant provided no
evidence that she incurred moving expenses in 2012 and 2014. The appellant
chose not to testify. Her agent, however, testified. He claimed that the
Minister had allowed the moving expenses indicated in the income tax returns
for the 2012 and 2014 taxation years. Clearly, the issuing of the reassessments
proves that this was not the case. It would also appear that the witness had no
personal knowledge of the moving expense amounts that the appellant allegedly
incurred. No documentary evidence was submitted in this regard. The burden of
proving the existence of moving expenses falls on the appellant.
[13]
In the absence of evidence that the appellant
incurred moving expenses, the appellant’s appeal for the 2014 taxation year is
dismissed.
Signed at
Ottawa, Canada, this 1st day of June 2017.
“Robert J. Hogan”
Email this Content