Date: 20040621
Docket: T-1169-03 and T-1170-03
Citation: 2004 FC 883
Vancouver, British Columbia, Monday, the 21st day of June, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE von FINCKENSTEIN
BETWEEN: T-1169-03
RODNEY WILFRED LOREE
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
BETWEEN: T-1170-03
ELAINE MARIE KUPSER
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
(Delivered orally from the bench and subsequently
written for clarification and precision)
[1] The applicants, Mr. Loree and his wife Ms. Kusper, at all relevant times owned and operated Associated Pavement Maintenance Ltd. From 1995 to 2000, their company failed to remit source deductions and GST and they failed to pay their own income taxes. As of September 11, 2002, the CCRA recorded a debt for the personal income tax accounts of $21, 399.66 for Ms. Kusper and $14,747.57 for Mr. Loree. Broken down this constituted $21,418.80 in principal and $14,729.43 in interest.
[2] Following registration of a certicate in lieu of judgment by CCRA, the couple sold their family home in the fall of 2002 and with the proceeds paid the outstanding principal and interest on their income tax debts and on their company's GST tax debts.
[3] Their application for a waiver or cancellation of interest paid on their personal income tax debt was denied in the first instance on September 26, 2002, and the second level request was denied on June 9, 2003. The applicant now seeks judicial review of that decision.
[4] Section 220(3.1) of the Income Tax Act and the guidelines issued pursuant thereto (IC92-2 Guidelines for the Cancellation and Waiver of Interest and Penalties) make it quite clear that discretion will only be exercised where: a) the debt resulted from actions beyond the taxpayers control; b) the debt can be attributed to actions of the CCRA; or c) where there is an inablility by the taxpayer to pay.
[5] None of these situations apply in the instant cases of the applicants.
[6] The applicants have paid their debt, they have even acquired a new home and their company has survived and is thriving. No case has been made out as to how CCRA's decision is in violation of s. 18.1 of the Federal Court Act or is in any way patently unreasonable.
[7] Accordingly, this application for judicial review will be dismissed.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that this application is hereby dismissed.
(Sgd.) "K. von Finckenstein"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1169-03 and T-1170-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: RODNEY WILFRED LOREE v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: Kelowna, BC
DATE OF HEARING: June 17, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: VON FINCKENSTEIN J.
DATED: June 21, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Rodney Wilfred Loree on his own behalf
Ms. Karen A. Truscott for Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg for Respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, ON
Email this Content