Date:
20021016
Docket:
A‑812‑00
Neutral
Citation: 2002 FCA 391
CORAM: DESJARDINS
DÉCARY
NOËL JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
GERTRUD
NEUHAUS
Applicant
and
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Hearing
held at Ottawa, Ontario, October 16, 2002.
Judgment
delivered at the hearing at Ottawa, Ontario, October 16, 2002.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL
J.A.
Date:
20021016
Docket:
A‑812‑00
Neutral
Citation: 2002 FCA 391
CORAM: DESJARDINS
DÉCARY
NOËL JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
GERTRUD
NEUHAUS
Applicant
and
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered
at the hearing at Ottawa, Ontario,
October
16, 2002)
NOËL J.A.
[1] The applicant appealed to the
Tax Court of Canada, alleging that the assessments issued against her did not
take into account the tax withheld at source by her employer.
[2] The Tax Court of Canada judge
dismissed the appeal. She concluded that the amounts assessed by the Minister
represented wages earned by the applicant on which no tax had been levied. She
added that since the applicant did not dispute the income determined by the
Minister in accordance with the assessments or the computation of the tax
pertaining thereto, she had no jurisdiction to rule on the issue of whether the
tax had or had not been withheld.
[3] The jurisdiction of the Tax
Court of Canada to hear an appeal from an assessment is covered in
section 169 of the Income Tax Act:
|
Where a taxpayer has served notice of
objection to an assessment under section 165, the taxpayer may appeal to
the Tax Court of Canada to have the assessment vacated or varied after
either
(a) the Minister has confirmed the
assessment or reassessed, or
(b) 90 days have elapsed after
service of the notice of objection and the Minister has not notified the
taxpayer that the Minister has vacated or confirmed the assessment or
reassessed,
but no appeal
under this section may be instituted after the expiration of 90 days
from the day notice has been mailed to the taxpayer under section 165
that the Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessed.
|
Lorsqu’un contribuable a signifié un avis
d’opposition à une cotisation, prévu à l’article 165, il peut interjeter
appel auprès de la Cour canadienne de l’impôt pour faire annuler ou
modifier la cotisation :
a) après
que le ministre a ratifié la cotisation ou procédé à une nouvelle cotisation;
b) après
l’expiration des 90 jours qui suivent la signification de l’avis
d’opposition sans que le ministre ait notifié au contribuable le fait qu’il a
annulé ou ratifié la cotisation ou procédé à une nouvelle cotisation;
toutefois,
nul appel prévu au présent article ne peut être interjeté après l’expiration
des 90 jours qui suivent la date où avis a été expédié par la poste au
contribuable, en vertu de l’article 165, portant que le ministre a
ratifié la cotisation ou procédé à une nouvelle cotisation.
|
(Emphasis
added)
[4] In this case, the applicant is
not seeking to have the disputed assessments vacated or varied. Rather, she is
claiming that the taxes as assessed by the Minister have already been paid by
way of a deduction at source (see subsection 227(9.4), which inter alia
makes the employer liable for the taxes owing by an employee up to and
including the amounts deducted from the salary and not remitted). In these
circumstances, the judge below rightly held that she did not have jurisdiction
and it was therefore wrong for her to consider the dispute on its merits.
[5] The problem raised by the
applicant is a collection problem. In this regard, section 222 assigns
jurisdiction to the Federal Court in these words:
|
All taxes,
interest, penalties, costs and other amounts payable under this Act are debts
due to Her Majesty and recoverable as such in the Federal Court ...
|
Tous les
impôts, intérêts, pénalités, frais et autres montants payables en vertu de la
présente loi sont des dettes envers Sa Majesté et recouvrables comme telles
devant la Cour fédérale [...]
|
[6] Insofar as the applicant claims
to have already paid the taxes being claimed from her, she may assert her
rights in the Federal Court when the Minister attempts to recover the sums he
considers payable. We wish to emphasize that in Suermont v. The Queen,
recently decided by this Court (2001 D.T.C. 5389), the issue of jurisdiction
had not been raised.
[7] The application for judicial
review will be dismissed. In the circumstances, there is no need to award
costs.
“Marc
Noël”
Judge
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE NO: A‑812‑00
STYLE: GERTRUD NEUHAUS v.
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF
HEARING: OTTAWA, ONTARIO
DATE OF
HEARING: OCTOBER 16, 2002
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: NOËL J.A.
DATE OF REASONS: OCTOBER 16, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Gertrud Neuhaus FOR
THE APPLICANT
Louis‑Aimé de Cotret
Richard Gobeil FOR
THE RESPONDENT
Jade Boucher
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Gertrud Neuhaus FOR
THE APPLICANT
Louis‑Aimé de Cotret
Aylmer, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR
THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content