Date:
20080403
Docket: A-258-06
Citation: 2008 FCA 122
CORAM: SEXTON J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
RUDOLF
DESOUZA
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on April 3, 2008.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on April 3, 2008.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW
J.A.
Date:
20080403
Docket:
A-258-06
Citation:
2008 FCA 122
CORAM: SEXTON
J.A.
SHARLOW
J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A.
BETWEEN:
RUDOLF
DESOUZA
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT
(Delivered
from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on April 3, 2008)
SHARLOW J.A.
[1]
Mr.
Rudolf DeSouza is appealing a judgment of Justice Sarchuk of the Tax Court of
Canada dismissing Mr. DeSouza’s income tax appeals for 2000 and 2001 (2005 TCC
746).
[2]
The
only issue before Justice Sarchuk was whether Mr. DeSouza was entitled to a
deduction under paragraph 8(1)(f) or subparagraph 8(1)(i)(ii) of
the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), for amounts
that he claimed to have paid to an assistant in connection with his employment
with Vaughan Engineering.
[3]
By
virtue of subsection 8(10) of the Income Tax Act, Mr. DeSouza was not
entitled to a deduction for that expense unless he submitted a prescribed form
signed by his employer certifying that the statutory conditions for the
deduction were met. There were two subsection 8(10) certificates before Justice
Sarchuk. One, signed by the chief financial officer of Vaughan Engineering,
indicates that the statutory conditions for the deductions claimed by Mr.
DeSouza were not met. The other, signed by the senior vice-president of Vaughan
Engineering, indicates that the statutory conditions were met.
[4]
Justice
Sarchuk did not accept the certificate signed by the senior vice-president, and
on that basis concluded that Mr. DeSouza had failed to provide the certificate
required by subsection 8(10). That was a sufficient ground for finding that Mr.
DeSouza was not entitled to the deduction claimed. However, Justice Sarchuk
also concluded that even if Mr. DeSouza had provided the required certificate,
his claim would have failed for lack of substantiating evidence. Justice
Sarchuk explained both conclusions in paragraphs 11 and 12 of his reasons.
[5]
The
written submissions of Mr. DeSouza in support of his appeal do not allege or
establish any error in Justice Sarchuk’s analysis or conclusions.
[6]
In
oral argument Mr. DeSouza attempted to raise an entirely new argument, which is
that during the years in question he was self-employed as a consulting engineer
and that the amounts allegedly paid to an assistant should have been allowed as
a deduction in computing the income from his consulting engineering business.
We are all of the view that it is too late at this stage to raise that
argument. We note that Mr. DeSouza claims that he intended to raise this point
in the Tax Court but did not do so because he was side-tracked at the outset
and became confused. We are not persuaded that this is a sufficient reason for
permitting an entirely new argument to be raised for the first time on an
appeal to this Court.
[7]
After
reviewing the record in this case and considering Mr. DeSouza’s written and
oral submissions, we are unable to detect any error of law on the part of
Justice Sarchuk or any other error that warrants the intervention of this
Court.
[8]
The
appeal will be dismissed with costs.
“K. Sharlow”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-258-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: RUDOLF DESOUZA v.
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 3, 2008
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SEXTON, SHARLOW, PELLETIER JJ.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: SHARLOW J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
Rudolf DeSouza
|
FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
Mr. Paolo
Torchetti
Ms. Brianna Caryll
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Rudolf DeSouza
Mississauga, Ontario
|
FOR THE
APPELLANT
|
|
John H. Sims,
Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE
RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content