Experimental feature warning
The hosting of judicial decisions on Tax Interpretations is in Beta. We do not guarantee the accuracy of this text.
The text-formatting is also in development. The final version will be more polished than what you see here.
Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 196
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
EDWARD J. GODSELL
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The appellant appeals from the judgment of the Tax Court which rejected the appellant's contention that the Minister of National Revenue had not acted with due dispatch in reassessing the income tax liability of the appellant in respect of his 1987 taxation year.
The first assessment of the appellant was issued three months after filing of the 1987 return. The Minister reassessed on August 1, 1989 and again on February 20, 1992. The appellant filed a Notice of Objection on May 12, 1992 and a Notice of Appeal on May 27, 1993. The Minister further reassessed on July 15, 1993.
Section 152(4) of the Income Tax Act provides for a reassessment period of three years. There is no condition that such reassessment be made with due dispatch. The August 1, 1989 reassessment and the February 20, 1992 reassessment took place within the three year period so that no complaint can be sustained for these reassessments.
Section 165(3) of the Act provides that upon receipt of a Notice of Objection, the Minister "shall, with all due dispatch," reconsider the assessment. The time period from the Notice of Objection on May 12, 1992 to July 15, 1993 was approximately 14 months.
In dismissing the taxpayer's appeal, the Tax Court Judge concluded that the issues involved were complex, and that much of the complexity was due to the fact that it was difficult to obtain information from the taxpayer. He insisted that communications be in writing rather than by telephone and rather than providing answers to queries of Revenue Canada, he would himself ask questions. While, in itself, the asking of questions is not objectionable, it nevertheless slows down the process with attendant delays in allowing the Minister to reassess.
In the circumstances, the Tax Court Judge said that she was unable to find that the Minister had failed to fulfil his duty of acting with due dispatch. We agree.
The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
"J. Edgar Sexton"
J. Richard C.J."