Citation:
2015TCC194
Date: 20150812
Docket: 2014-653(GST)I
2014-2582(GST)I
BETWEEN:
GARMECO
CANADA INTERNATIONAL
CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD.,
Appellant,
and
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
AMENDED
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
V.A. Miller J.
[1]
These appeals relate to assessments under the Excise
Tax Act (“ETA”) for the period April 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010 and the
periods January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013. In those periods, the Appellant
claimed input tax credits (“ITCs”) in the total amount of $94,950.99 and the
Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) denied ITCs in the amount of
$29,156.97.
[2]
The ITCs at issue in this appeal mainly relate
to legal fees and expenses for supplies. They were denied on the basis that
they were not acquired for consumption or use in the course of the Appellant’s
commercial activities. As a result, the nature of the Appellant’s commercial
activities in 2012 and 2013 was an issue raised in this appeal.
Preliminary Matter
[3]
At the beginning of the hearing, counsel for the
Respondent conceded that further ITCs of $13.50 for the period ending September
30, 2011 and $19.59 for the period ending December 31, 2011 should be allowed.
The representative for the Appellant conceded that an ITC in the amount of
$59.94 for the period ending March 31, 2013 was properly disallowed.
[4]
The Appellant was represented by Roger Georges
Abou-Rached. He stated that he was the President and CEO of the Appellant. The
following witnesses were called by the Appellant:
Roger Georges
Abou-Rached (Mr. Rached);
Douglas Bencze,
accountant for Mr. Rached’s companies;
Pauline Nagra,
GST/HST auditor with the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”);
Douglas Laporte,
Audit Team Leader with CRA;
Hendric Cheung,
Appeals Officer with CRA.
Facts
[5]
According to Mr. Rached, his family has
incorporated in excess of 27 corporations. He described the corporate structure
as the Garmeco Family of Companies which consisted of both domestic and
international private corporations. He submitted an Organization Chart (exhibit
A-1) which he stated showed the property ownership and share structure of the
various corporations. According to the Organization Chart, Mr. Rached’s mother,
Mrs. Hilda Georges Abou-Rached, is the sole shareholder in the Appellant and
many of the other family corporations. International Hi-Tech Industries Inc.
(“IHI”), a public corporation, and its subsidiaries were also included on the
Organization Chart. Mr. Rached stated that IHI is not included in the Garmeco
Family of Companies but his family owned shares in IHI. IHI and its
subsidiaries are not related to the Garmeco Family of Companies.
[6]
Mr. Rached gave a detailed but rambling
description of the events which preceded the Appellant claiming the ITCs in
issue. A summary of his evidence follows.
[7]
Mr. Rached stated that he has his Masters in
Engineering from Stanford University and his father was a professor of
engineering. Mr. Rached and his father had developed a “revolutionary
construction technology” which allowed them to construct customized
buildings consisting of steel/concrete insulated panels which they manufactured
in a factory. In Canada, all rights to the technology were transferred to
R.A.R. Consultants, a company within the Garmeco Family of Companies. The
Canadian rights to the technology were assigned to IHI which had land and a
factory at 7393 Hopcott Road, Delta, British Columbia (“IHI factory”). IHI
purchased robots from General Electric Capital Canada Inc., Fanuc Robotics
Canada Ltd. and Fanuc Robotics North America Inc. (“Fanuc-GE”) to facilitate
the construction of the panels. Mr. Rached stated that the robots did not
operate properly and on March 26, 2002, IHI commenced an action
against Fanuc-GE in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (exhibit A-19). IHI
lost the action and was ordered to pay costs to Fanuc-GE.
[8]
Fanuc-GE obtained a judgment against IHI and
brought an application to force the sale of the IHI factory so that it could
realize the amounts payable under the judgment. In January, 2007, the Appellant
engaged the firm of DuMoulin Boskovich to defend against Fanuc-GE’s application
and to enforce the claims of a group of Garmeco companies under a General
Security Agreement (“GSA”) which it had with IHI.
[9]
According to the GSA, it was made on December
15, 2001 between IHI and/or IHI International Holdings Ltd. (Bermuda) in
consideration for loans advanced by the Appellant; Garmeco International
Consulting Engineers S.A.L. (a corporation resident in Lebanon); IHI Holdings
Ltd.; and Earthquake Resistant Structures Delaware USA. I will refer to these
corporations as the Garmeco Companies.
[10]
On April 14, 2008, the Supreme Court of British
Columbia ordered that the IHI factory was to be sold so that Fanuc-GE could
realize the amounts payable under its judgment. However, in that same Order,
the Court found that the GSA was “bona fide”. The Garmeco Companies were later
successful in enforcing the security they held against IHI and the IHI factory
was not sold.
[11]
IHI was placed into receivership on June 16,
2010 and it was petitioned into bankruptcy on November 19, 2010. Although the
Trustee in bankruptcy did not release its interest in the Estate of IHI until
October 5, 2012, IHI Manufacturing Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of IHI,
operated the IHI factory in 2010 (See exhibit R-6).
[12]
Mr. Rached stated that after the long court case
with Fanuc-GE, his family tried to simplify things by allowing the Appellant “to run the show”. According to Mr. Rached, all
accounts for the other related companies were closed and the Appellant paid all
bills associated with those companies. Mr. Rached stated that the Appellant
“runs the show”. It pays for the management, the legal fees, the GST and any
remittances which are owed by the other companies controlled by his family (See
page 29 of the transcript). At another point in his evidence, Mr. Rached
stated that the other companies were created “to limit
the liability going back to” the Appellant.
[13]
I have concluded from Mr. Rached’s evidence that
all monies for the Garmeco Family of Companies were funneled through the
Appellant. If a corporation gave a mortgage on a property it owned, the
mortgage proceeds were given to the Appellant and then the Appellant made the
mortgage payments as a loan to that corporation. The corporation was considered
to be indebted to the Appellant for these payments. The Appellant then loaned the
proceeds of the mortgage to whichever corporation was in need at that time and
all loans were secured by general security agreements. According to the
Organization Chart, Mrs. Rached guaranteed all mortgages on all properties.
[14]
Mr. Rached tendered several documents to support
his testimony that the Appellant “runs the show”.
Those documents consisted of the following:
(a) A General Security Agreement dated November 20, 2007 to secure all
present and future amounts lent to IHI Manufacturing Ltd. by the Appellant. I
note that part of the collateral subject to the security interest included the
equipment and furnishings at the IHI factory.
(b) A General Management Agreement dated January 1, 2009 between 443686
BC Ltd. and the Appellant as Manager. The agreement directed the Appellant to
pay all expenses of 443686 BC Ltd.; to manage its affairs and to collect and
pay all taxes due or payable. The Appellant had a similar management agreement
between itself and 434088 BC Ltd. Neither agreement stated that the Appellant would
be paid for its management services.
(c) A letter dated June 15, 2009 which confirmed that IHI Developments
Ltd., IHI Development II Ltd., IHI Manufacturing Ltd., and RAR Consultants Ltd.
authorized the Appellant to manage their affairs and assets including
maintenance and utilities expenses for “fees based on
cost plus bonus, as per agreement to be entered into per entity in the future
(based on surplus funds)”. Mr. Rached signed the letter on behalf of
each corporation which was to be managed by the Appellant. The letter confirmed
that all expenses paid or to be paid by the Appellant were covered under
“Security Pledges” and General Security Agreements in favour of the Appellant.
It also contained the following paragraph:
Moreover, all GST
or any applicable tax refund, (including SR&ED) paid or financed by Garmeco
will be to the sole benefit of Garmeco to claim and receive payment.
(d)
An Assignment
Confirmation dated November 19, 2010 in which IHI assigned its BC Hydro and
Fortis BC accounts to IHI Manufacturing Ltd. The confirmation purported to
assign the ITCs incurred for these expenses to IHI Manufacturing Ltd.
(e)
An Assignment
Confirmation dated December 1, 2011 in which IHI Manufacturing Ltd. assigned
the same BC Hydro and Fortis BC accounts referred to in (d) above to the
Appellant. According to this document, IHI Manufacturing Ltd. also assigned its
account with Lehigh Hanson Materials Limited (“Lehigh Hanson”) to the
Appellant.
[15]
The BC Hydro and Fortis BC accounts were for the
supply of hydro and gas for the IHI factory. The Lehigh Hanson account was for
raw materials used in the IHI factory.
[16]
On December 6, 2012, the Supreme Court of
British Columbia ordered that upon registration of a copy of its Order together
with a letter from DuMoulin Boskovich to the Registrar of Titles authorizing
the registration of its Order, the IHI factory was to be transferred to and
vest absolutely in Garmeco Investment Group Inc. as registered owner in fee
simple. Mr. Rached stated that Garmeco Investment Group Inc. was a new
corporation; it had no money and could not register the IHI factory in its name
until November 2013 when it was able to borrow money from the Garmeco Family of
Companies and a private lender.
[17]
Mr. Rached stated that during the relevant
period, the workers at the IHI factory were employed by IHI Manufacturing but
their net wages were paid to them by the Appellant. IHI Manufacturing is
responsible for the source deductions but they have not been paid to the
Minister.
[18]
Mr. Bencze testified that he started to work for
the IHI Group in 2009. He was hired to work 12 hours a week to draw up an
application for a Scientific Research and Development grant. He complained that
he has not been able to complete the application because the CRA has performed
a pre-assessment audit on each GST return filed by the Appellant and he is
required to answer questions and give documentation to support the ITCs
claimed.
[19]
According to Mr. Bencze, the Appellant is in the
businesses of selling panels produced at the IHI factory, making loans to its
related corporations and providing consulting services to those related
corporations.
[20]
It was Mr. Bencze’s evidence that IHI
Manufacturing operated the IHI factory from November 2010 until mid-December
2011. In January 2012, the Appellant began to operate the IHI factory. It
ordered the supplies and it paid the employees. The invoices from all suppliers
are now addressed to the Appellant except those from BC Hydro and Fortis BC.
Both BC Hydro and Fortis BC refused to change the accounts to the Appellant’s
name unless it paid a security deposit to them.
Appellant’s Position
[21]
It was the Appellant’s position that all
corporations in the Garmeco Family of Companies may be separate but they are
linked. They are all controlled by his mother, Hilda Georges Abou Rached, who
is the majority shareholder in each corporation. As far as Mr. Rached was
concerned, the corporations were all one. He stated:
But for us it’s
all one thing. My mother owns them all. (Transcript page 157)
[22]
It was Mr. Rached’s view that the Appellant paid
for all services and supplies provided to the corporations and it should be
entitled to claim the ITCs associated with the HST which it paid. The Appellant
had a General Security Agreement, Management Agreements and Assignment Agreements
with its related corporations.
Respondent’s Position
[23]
It was the Respondent’s position that the
Appellant’s only commercial activity was the provision of consulting services
to IHI and its subsidiaries. Although the Appellant may have paid for expenses
related to the IHI factory, it did so pursuant to its Management Agreement with
IHI Manufacturing who operated the IHI factory. Counsel argued that some of the
expenses paid by the Appellant were for supplies related to the commercial
activities of other entities.
[24]
With respect to the legal and professional fees
which the Appellant paid, counsel argued that these expenses related to an
action to protect the Garmeco Companies’ security claim over loans it had made
to IHI. Although the Appellant may be the recipient of these services, the
legal services were related to the financial services provided by the Appellant
and the Garmeco Companies. The financial services are exempt supplies under the
ETA.
Law
[25]
The tax imposed by the ETA is a
consumption tax. It is designed to be paid by the final consumer. To achieve
that result, a buyer of goods and services gets credit for the inputs which are
used in the course of its commercial activities. Subsection 169(1) of the ETA
provides:
169. (1) Subject
to this Part, where a person acquires or imports property or a service or
brings it into a participating province and, during a reporting period of the
person during which the person is a registrant, tax in respect of the supply,
importation or bringing in becomes payable by the person or is paid by the
person without having become payable, the amount determined by the following
formula is an input tax credit of the person in respect of the property or
service for the period:
A × B
where
A
is the tax in
respect of the supply, importation or bringing in, as the case may be, that
becomes payable by the person during the reporting period or that is paid by
the person during the period without having become payable; and
B
is
(a) where the tax
is deemed under subsection 202(4) to have been paid in respect of the property
on the last day of a taxation year of the person, the extent (expressed as a
percentage of the total use of the property in the course of commercial
activities and businesses of the person during that taxation year) to which the
person used the property in the course of commercial activities of the person
during that taxation year,
(b) where the
property or service is acquired, imported or brought into the province, as the
case may be, by the person for use in improving capital property of the person,
the extent (expressed as a percentage) to which the person was using the
capital property in the course of commercial activities of the person
immediately after the capital property or a portion thereof was last acquired
or imported by the person, and
(c) in any other
case, the extent (expressed as a percentage) to which the person acquired or
imported the property or service or brought it into the participating province,
as the case may be, for consumption, use or supply in the course of commercial
activities of the person.
[26]
The documentation which a registrant must
provide to claim an ITC is given in subsection 169(4) of the ETA. It
reads:
Required
documentation
(4) A registrant
may not claim an input tax credit for a reporting period unless, before filing
the return in which the credit is claimed,
(a) the
registrant has obtained sufficient evidence in such form containing such
information as will enable the amount of the input tax credit to be determined,
including any such information as may be prescribed; and
(b) where the
credit is in respect of property or a service supplied to the registrant in
circumstances in which the registrant is required to report the tax payable in
respect of the supply in a return filed with the Minister under this Part, the
registrant has so reported the tax in a return filed under this Part.
[27]
The prescribed information is set out in the Input
Tax Credit Information (GST/HST) Regulations, (SOR/91-45) (the “Regulations”),
section 3 and the Regulations must be strictly adhered to: Key
Property Management Corp v R, 2004 TCC 210; Davis v R, 2004 TCC 662;
affirmed by Systematix Technology Consultants Inc v R, 2007 FCA 226.
[28]
The term “commercial activity” is defined in
subsection 123(1) of the ETA. It reads:
“commercial
activity” of a person means
(a) a business
carried on by the person (other than a business carried on without a reasonable
expectation of profit by an individual, a personal trust or a partnership, all
of the members of which are individuals), except to the extent to which the
business involves the making of exempt supplies by the person,
(b) an adventure
or concern of the person in the nature of trade (other than an adventure or
concern engaged in without a reasonable expectation of profit by an individual,
a personal trust or a partnership, all of the members of which are
individuals), except to the extent to which the adventure or concern involves
the making of exempt supplies by the person, and
(c) the making of
a supply (other than an exempt supply) by the person of real property of the
person, including anything done by the person in the course of or in connection
with the making of the supply;
[29]
An exempt supply is defined in section 123 of
the ETA as a supply which is included in Part VII of Schedule V which in
turn states that it is a supply of a financial service that is not included in
Part IX of Schedule VI.
[30]
Section 123(1) defines a financial service.
Included in that definition are the following:
financial
service” means
(a) the exchange,
payment, issue, receipt or transfer of money, whether effected by the exchange
of currency, by crediting or debiting accounts or otherwise,
(b) the operation
or maintenance of a savings, chequing, deposit, loan, charge or other account,
(c) the lending
or borrowing of a financial instrument,
…
(g) the making of any advance, the granting of any credit or the lending
of money,
Analysis
[31]
Before the Appellant can receive the ITCs in
issue pursuant to subsection 169(1), it must demonstrate that it was contractually
liable to pay for the supplies or services and that the supplies or services
were acquired for consumption, use or supply in the course of its commercial
activities. (General Motors of Canada Ltd v R, 2008 TCC 117; affirmed
2009 FCA 114 and YSI’s Yacht Sales International Ltd v R, 2007 TCC 306).
[32]
The parties did not agree on which commercial
activities were carried on by the Appellant during the relevant period. Mr.
Bencze testified that IHI Manufacturing operated the IHI factory from November
2010 until mid-December 2011 and that, in January 2012, the Appellant began to
operate the IHI factory as its own commercial activity. It was the Respondent’s
position that the Appellant’s only commercial activity during the period was
the consulting business.
[33]
I have concluded from the totality of the
evidence that, in 2012 and 2013, the Appellant did not operate the IHI factory
as its own commercial activity. Rather, IHI Manufacturing operated the IHI
factory during the entire period in issue and the Appellant managed the IHI
factory in accordance with the management agreement it had with IHI
Manufacturing (exhibit A-6).
[34]
In direct examination, Mr. Rached stated that
the Appellant “ran the show” in accordance with
the agreements it had with the other corporations. According to the agreement
which the Appellant had with IHI Manufacturing, the Appellant was to “manage all their affairs related to services or to managing
their assets, maintenance and utilities expenses …”. Initially in cross
examination, Mr. Rached agreed that IHI Manufacturing operated the IHI factory in
2012 and 2013. Later in his cross examination, Mr. Rached changed his story and
stated that the Appellant operated the IHI factory as its business. However, no
documentary evidence was tendered to support the statement that IHI
Manufacturing was no longer operating the business and that the business had
been transferred to the Appellant. I have not accepted this change in testimony
as representing the true state of affairs. I found that Mr. Rached was argumentative,
evasive in many of his answers and his responses were often self-serving.
[35]
It is my view that the only reason the Appellant
alleged that it operated the IHI factory in 2012 was because in prior years,
the CRA withheld the refund of ITCs from IHI Manufacturing. In 2010 and 2011,
IHI Manufacturing filed its GST returns and claimed the ITCs for expenses it
incurred in the operation of the IHI factory. However, the refunds were not
issued to IHI Manufacturing because it had a tax debt. Rather, CRA set off the
amount of the refund against the tax debt owed by IHI Manufacturing.
[36]
I have concluded from Mr. Rached’s evidence that
the CRA garnisheed monies from IHI Manufacturing’s bank account and he closed
the bank account.
[37]
For most of the periods in 2010, 2011 and 2012,
the Appellant reported that it had no taxable supplies from its commercial
activities. It reported taxable supplies in the amount of $19,500 in each of
the first and second quarter of 2011 and taxable supplies of $16,423 in the
second quarter of 2012. Mr. Rached confirmed that these taxable supplies arose
from the Appellant’s consulting business.
[38]
Mr. Bencze stated that in 2013, the Appellant
had business income from panels it sold to Lynnwood Marina which is owned by
the Squamish Nation. He stated that the sales were not reported for GST
purposes because they were not taxable supplies.
[39]
It is my view that Mr. Rached tried to arrange
matters so that it would appear that the Appellant operated the IHI factory in
2012 and 2013 and that it was entitled to the ITCs associated with the factory.
Mr. Rached asked the suppliers of materials to IHI Manufacturing to issue or in
some cases to reissue their invoices in the Appellant’s name.
[40]
Mr. Rached’s description of events is suspicious
to say the least. According to him, the Appellant took over the operation of
the IHI factory as its own business in 2012 and 2013; it pays the employees
their net wages but the employees conveniently remain the employees of IHI
Manufacturing which remains liable for the source deductions. I do not believe
Mr. Rached’s version of events.
[41]
Both IHI Manufacturing and the Appellant are
behind in filing their income tax returns and therefore neither of them has
reported the business associated with the IHI factory for income tax purposes.
The Appellant’s income tax return for the 2008 taxation year was filed only in
2014.
[42]
I have also concluded that the Appellant is not
in the “business” of making loans to other corporations in the Garmeco Family
of Companies. It does not charge interest on any amount which it allegedly
lends to the other corporations. The Appellant is not in the “business” of
managing any of the related companies. It does not charge for its services.
[43]
The Management Agreement between the Appellant
and IHI Developments Ltd., IHI Development II Ltd., IHI Manufacturing Ltd., and
RAR Consultants Ltd. speaks to these entities paying “fees
based on cost plus bonus, as per agreement to be entered into per entity in the
future (based on surplus funds)”. None of the entities has made an
agreement with respect to the bonus and no amount has ever been paid to the
Appellant for its management services. As it stands, it is just an agreement to
agree in the future.
[44]
The only commercial activity carried on by the
Appellant during the period was engineering consulting services. These services
were delivered by Mr. Rached’s brother, René.
[45]
Mr. Rached asserted that the Appellant should be
entitled to claim an ITC for expenses which it paid on behalf of the other
corporations in the Garmeco Family of Companies. However, as I stated above,
before the Appellant can receive the ITCs in question, it must demonstrate that
it was contractually liable to pay the supplier for the goods and services and
that it acquired the goods and services for consumption or use in the course of
its own commercial activity. A contract between the Appellant and its related
corporations is not sufficient to entitle the Appellant to receive the ITCs in
question in this appeal.
[46]
With these comments in mind, I turn to the ITCs
claimed by the Appellant.
The ITCs
[47]
The ITC adjustments were listed in Schedule E of
the Reply for the 2014-653(GST)I appeal and in Schedule D of Reply for the
2014-2582(GST)I appeal. I have attached the Schedules to these reasons. I will
refer to the ITCs according to the number assigned to it in the schedules. I
have reviewed each invoice associated with the ITCs in issue and it is my view
that the Appellant is not entitled to receive any ITCs beyond those already
conceded by the Minister. My conclusion is based on the following reasons:
2014-653(GST)I
– Schedule E and 2014-2582(GST)I – Schedule D
1.
The ITC at #1 was $173.37 and there were two
invoices associated with this amount. The invoice from BASF is for supplies
provided to IHI and the invoice from DuMoulin Boskovich is for services
provided to the Garmeco Companies so they could enforce the security they held
against the assets of IHI. The Appellant was the recipient of these services as
it engaged DuMoulin Boskovich and was contractually liable to DuMoulin
Boskovich. However, the services were not acquired for use or consumption in
the course of the Appellant’s commercial activities.
2.
ITCs at 2 to 19 are no longer in dispute.
3.
There was no invoice for the ITC claimed at #
20.
4.
The ITCs at 21, 22, 34 to 38, 48, 49, 74 to 79,
106, 107, 119 to 125, 134 to 139 and 149 to 153 were for legal services
provided by DuMoulin Boskovich for the same purpose as in #1.
5.
The ITC at 23 was for the legal services
provided to International Red Eagle Holdings Inc. when it sold a property on
Granville Street in Vancouver in 2008. The services were not provided to the
Appellant and the Appellant was not the recipient.
6.
The ITC at 24 was for legal services provided to
IHI Developments-11 Ltd., IHI Developments-II and IHI Developments Ltd. in 2009
to place a mortgage on properties owned by them and to register the mortgages.
The Appellant was not the recipient.
7.
There were no invoices for the ITCs at 25 and 26
but I infer from an email dated March 27, 2009 that these amounts were for
legal services provided to IHI in its action against CNRL.
8.
The ITCs at 27 and 29 were conceded by the
Respondent.
9.
The ITCs at 28, 30 and 31 were for Trustee
services provided to IHI in Receivership and IHI in Bankruptcy. There were
invoices for #28 and #30 only. The Appellant was not the recipient of these
services.
10. The ITCs at 32 and 33 are no longer in issue.
11. The ITCs at 39 and 40 were not for services provided to the
Appellant. They were for legal services provided to 434088 B.C. Ltd and 443686
B.C. Ltd. in 2008 and the services were described as “General Corporate Matters”.
12. The ITCs at 41 and 42 were conceded by the Respondent.
13. The ITCs at 43 to 47; 55 to 66; 84 to 100; 108 to 113; 126 to 131;
140 to 147 and 154 to 157 were for hydro and gas services provided to IHI and
IHI Manufacturing.
14. The ITCs at 50, 101 to 105 are for supplies from LeHigh Hanson
Materials which were used for production at the IHI factory in 2012. I have
concluded that IHI Manufacturing operated the business at the IHI factory in
2012 and not the Appellant. These supplies were not for use or consumption in
the Appellant’s commercial activities.
15. The ITCs at 51 to 54; 67 to 73 and 80 to 83 were not at issue in the
appeal.
16. The ITCs at 114 to 118 were not in issue in the appeal.
17. The ITC at 132 was for legal services provided to 434088 B.C. Ltd
and 443686 B.C. Ltd. to refinance the mortgages on properties they owned. The
Appellant is not the recipient of these legal services.
18. The ITC at 133 was for landscaping services. According to the
invoice, the services were sold to IHI.
19. The Appellant conceded that the ITC at 148 was properly disallowed.
[48]
Throughout the hearing, Mr. Rached complained
about the actions of the CRA because they continued to audit each of the GST returns
filed by the Appellant. Ms. Nagra explained that because the Appellant had been
audited, it was CRA’s policy to perform a pre-assessment audit on subsequent
returns filed by the Appellant to ensure that it was not claiming ITCs for
items which had been previously denied. Mr. Rached was not satisfied with Ms.
Nagra’s explanation.
[49]
Mr. Rached was also not satisfied with my
explanation that the actions of the CRA were not relevant to an appeal to this
Court: Main Rehabilitation Co v R, 2004 FCA 403. He continuously
complained and made arguments concerning the actions of the CRA officers.
[50]
The hearing of this appeal was originally set
for one day. However, due to Mr. Rached’s lengthy, rambling explanations and
his argumentative manner, the hearing lasted three days. He unduly delayed the
hearing of this appeal and it is my view that costs are warranted. The
Respondent is awarded costs of $1000.
[51]
In conclusion, appeal 2014-653(GST)I is allowed
only to the extent of the concessions made by the Respondent. Those concessions
were that the Appellant is entitled to ITCs in the amount of $13.50 for the
period ending September 30, 2011 and $19.59 for the period ending December 31,
2011. Appeal 2014-2582(GST)I is dismissed.
These Reasons for Judgment are
issued in substitution for the
Reasons for Judgment dated July 31, 2015
Signed
at Halifax, Nova Scotia, this 12th day of August 2015.
“V.A. Miller”
Email this Content