Date: 20070419
Docket: A-380-06
Citation: 2007 FCA
155
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
NOËL J.A.
NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
CONCETA
PASSUCCI
Appellant
and
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on April 16, 2007.
Judgment delivered at Montréal,
Quebec, on April 19, 2007.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NADON
J.A.
CONCURRED
IN BY: DESJARDINS
J.A.
NOËL
J.A.
Date: 20070419
Docket: A-380-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 155
CORAM: DESJARDINS
J.A.
NOËL
J.A.
NADON
J.A.
BETWEEN:
CONCETA
PASSUCCI
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY
THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NADON J.A.
[1]
This is an
appeal from a decision of Madam Justice Lucie Lamarre dated July 5, 2006, which
dismissed the appellant’s appeal from the Minister’s assessment under the Excise
Tax Act for unremitted Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) in the amount of $36,981.14
and for disallowed input tax credits (“ITCs”) in the amount of $849.40,
together with interest and penalties for the period of January 1, 1999, to
December 31, 2002.
[2]
Considering
that a substantial portion of the evidence adduced before the Tax Court,
including the transcripts of the viva voce evidence, does not form part
of the record which is before us, I cannot conclude that the Tax Court Judge
made any error which would allow us to intervene.
[3]
I am unable
to find, as the appellant invites us to, that the method used by the
respondent’s auditor to assess her for the tax years at issue is either
unreasonable or leads to a result which is devoid of sense. Nor am I able to
determine whether the factual underpinnings on which the auditor relied on are
unreasonable or plainly wrong.
[4]
Although I note the
fact that in Concetta Passucci, Restaurant 7e ciel et al. c. Le sous-ministre du
Revenu du Québec (C.Q. (Civ.
Div.), Court Nos.
500-80-004658-051, 500-80-004813-052, 500-80-004815-057, June 28, 2006,
unreported), the Court of Quebec held in favour of the appellant with respect
to a related income tax assessment issued by Revenue Quebec, I must point out
that the Tax Court Judge was not bound by that decision. She had to decide the
case on the evidence before her and it is on that basis that her decision must
be reviewed.
[5]
I would therefore
dismiss the appeal. As the respondent does not seek costs, I would make no
order in that regard.
“M. Nadon”
“I
concur”.
“Alice
Desjardins, J.A.”
“I
agree.”
“Marc
Noël, J.A.”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-380-06
APPEAL FROM
AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE LUCIE LAMARRE OF THE TAX COURT OF CANADA,
DATED JULY 5, 2006, NO. 2005-1455(GST)(I).
STYLE OF CAUSE: Conceta
Passucci
v. Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: April 16, 2007
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NADON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
NOËL J.A.
DATED: April 19, 2007
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Antonio
Passucci
Montréal, Quebec
|
FOR THE
APPELLANT
|
Mr. Gerald
Danis
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
c/o Veillette, Larivière
Montréal, Quebec
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|