Milliken,
DCJ:—This
is
an
appeal
by
the
Crown
from
a
dismissal
of
an
information
against
Romeo’s
Trucking
Ltd
of
Prince
Albert,
Saskatchewan,
charging
that
Romeo’s
Trucking
Ltd
did
on
or
about
November
21,
AD
1978
at
Prince
Albert,
in
the
Province
of
Saskatchewan,
fail
to
file
a
return
required
by
or
under
the
Income
Tax
Act
to
wit:
income
tax
return
on
Form
T2
for
taxation
year
1977,
following
demand
therefor
dated
September
19,1978
made
upon
it
pursuant
to
subsection
150(2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
contrary
to
subsection
238(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
RSC
1952,
c
148,
as
amended.
The
issue
concerned
in
this
appeal
is
whether
evidence
from
the
accountant
of
Romeo’s
Trucking
Ltd,
that
he
did
mail
during
the
first
week
of
October,
1978,
a
return
for
the
year
1977
from
a
post
office
in
Prince
Albert,
rebutts
the
presumption
created
by
an
affidavit
filed
by
an
officer
of
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
in
charge
of
the
appropriate
records
in
the
Saskatoon
District
Taxation
Office.
Art
Perkins
testified
that
he
was
a
public
accountant
and
that
one
of
his
clients
was
Romeo’s
Trucking
Ltd
and
that
he
had
been
requested
by
Romeo
Quirion,
president
of
Romeo’s
Trucking
Ltd,
to
prepare
a
taxation
return
for
the
year
1977,
which
return
was
prepared
and
mailed
by
him
in
the
first
week
of
October,
1978,
addressed
to
the
Saskatoon
Taxation
Office.
I
can
find
no
reason
to
disbelieve
Mr
Perkins
that
he
did
in
fact
send
the
required
return
in
the
first
week
of
October,
1978
by
mail
to
the
Saskatoon
Taxation
Office,
Department
of
National
Revenue.
Subsection
244(7)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
provides
as
follows:
Whereby
this
Act
or
a
regulation,
a
person
is
required
to
make
a
return,
statement,
answer
or
certificate,
an
affidavit
of
an
officer
of
the
Department
of
National
Revenue,
sworn
before
a
commissioner
or
other
person
authorized
to
take
affidavits,
setting
out
that
he
has
charge
of
the
appropriate
records
and
that
after
careful
examination
and
search
of
the
records
he
has
been
unable
to
find
ina
given
case
that
the
return,
statement,
answer
or
certificate,
as
the
case
may
be,
has
been
made
by
such
person,
shall
be
received
as
prima
facie
evidence
that
in
such
case
that
person
did
not
make
the
return,
statement,
answer
or
certificate,
as
the
case
may
be.
It
is
my
opinion
that
subsection
244(7)
provides
that
if
by
affidavit
a
proper
officer
states
that
upon
careful
examination
and
search
of
the
records
no
return
has
been
made,
then
such
affidavit
shall
be
received
as
prima
facie
proof
that
a
return
was
not
made
as
required.
The
evidence
of
the
affidavit
thus
begin
prima
facie
evidence
which
prima
facie
evidence
can
be
rebutted
by
evidence
to
the
contrary
which
in
this
case,
in
my
opinion,
was
given,
therefore
the
presumption
under
subsection
244(7)
fails
and
there
is
no
evidence
against
Romeo’s
Trucking
Ltd
that
it
did
not
make
the
return
when
required
to
do
so.
The
appeal
by
the
Crown
is
dismissed.
Email this Content