|
Citation: 2003TCC447
Date: 20030722
Docket: 2002-3909(IT)APP
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
DONALD DEWEY,
|
|
Applicant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered orally from the Bench at
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on February 5, 2003)
[1] This application
for an extension of time in which to file an appeal was heard at Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan on February 4, 2003. The Applicant and his wife, Evelyn both
testified.
[2] The proposed appeal
is in relation to the disallowance of a standard bred horse breeding and
apparently racing operation that the Applicant operates from Martensville,
Saskatchewan, a suburb about 20 kilometres north of Saskatoon.
[3] The chronology of
this matter (based upon Exhibit A-1, the Applicant's file) is as follows:
1. August
31, 2001
Notice of Confirmation for 1997,
1998 and 1999 is mailed to the Applicant.
From the material on the file it
appears that he had no income at all during those years from the standard bred
horse breeding and/or racing operation.
2. Shortly
after August 31, 2001
The Applicant, or his
wife, spoke to their accountant who said in essence, that there was no use
appealing.
3. January 11
and May 5, 2002
Collection notices are
sent by CCRA to the Applicant.
4. May 25, 2002
Applicant's dated copy
of National Post article respecting the Supreme Court of Canada decisions on
reasonable expectation of profit are contained in his file.
5. June 18,
2002
CCRA wrote the Applicant
with instructions to appeal and the method of appealing.
6. September 25, 2002
Dated letter has notes
on it about "switch board" and "975-5530". The Applicant's
testimony is that phone calls in relation to these matters occurred whereupon
he contacted the Tax Court and filed the application.
7. October 10,
2002
This application
is filed in the Tax Court.
[4] The Applicant and
his wife gave disjointed testimony which confirmed the foregoing dates
generally. However, the testimony is also interpreted by the Court to establish
that the Applicant did not appeal after discussing the confirmation with his
accountant. At that time, the Applicant and his wife knew that they could
appeal and chose not to do so, nor did they appeal after the June 18th, 2002
letter from CCRA. They only began to think again about appealing after
collection began, and in particular any GST benefit entitlement is denied.
[5] On the evidence,
the Applicant, one, was able to appeal at all material times; two, had no
intention of appealing until around early October 2002. In particular, immediately
after June 18, 2002 he did not proceed upon CCRA's direct instructions. Three,
the Applicant has not established reasonable grounds for the appeal.
[6] In the foregoing
circumstances, the Applicant has not established sufficient grounds to grant the
application. It is dismissed.
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 22nd day
of July 2003.
Beaubier,
J.
Email this Content