[2]
As a result of an audit, the appellant was reassessed according to the
net worth method. The Minister was forced to apply this procedure because it
was impossible to establish the appellant’s income and expenses accurately from
his accounts, the absence of which is all the more surprising since the
appellant operates his own accounting business.
[3]
The argument before the Tax Court of Canada focused on the auditor’s
findings concerning the appellant’s income and expenses. In order to resolve
those issues, the Court had to draw findings of fact from the evidence
available and from its assessment of the credibility of the appellant and
witnesses. These findings cannot be challenged by this Court in the absence of
a palpable and overriding error, which is not the case here. See Housen v.
Nikolaisen, [2002] S.C.R. 235.
[4]
With regard to the reassessment of the appellant beyond the normal
period of time, we are agreed that, even if the prescription had not been
waived, the Tax Court of Canada had ample reason to find that the appellant had
misrepresented the facts through negligence, carelessness or fraud. We need
only note that, while the appellant reported business income of less than
$9,000 per annum, he contributed $8,000 a year to the support of his two daughters,
while paying life insurance premiums of about $3,100 a year. The Tax Court of
Canada judge did not err in finding the appellant either negligent or careless
in providing information.
[5]
The appeal will be dismissed with costs, with the exception that, on the
respondent’s confession of judgment with regard to two minor corrections, the
appellant will be entitled to a reduction of the amount from $3,500 to
$2,000 for item [TRANSLATION]
“lotteries” for the 1997 taxation year and a depreciation in the amount of $791
for office equipment for the same year.
“Denis Pelletier” J.A.
Certified true translation
Michael Palles
FEDERAL
COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-201-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: HAIM PINTO
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal,
Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: May
4, 2005
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
DELIVERED AT THE HEARING BY: PELLETIER
J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
Haim Pinto
On his own
behalf
|
FOR THE
APPELLANT
|
|
Bernard
Fontaine
|
FOR THE
RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal,
Quebec
|
FOR THE
RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content