Karam v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 86

Date: 20160315

Docket: A-271-15

Citation: 2016 FCA 86

Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 15, 2016.

Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 15, 2016.

Date: 20160315

Docket: A-271-15

Citation: 2016 FCA 86

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 15, 2016).

PELLETIER J.A.

[1]               The appellant appeals from the decision of the Federal Court (2015 FC 600) dismissing his application for judicial review of what he characterizes as a collection matter.

[2]               The basis of the appellant’s argument is that the notice of confirmation provided by the Minister on November 17, 2010 provides the legally correct basis of the appellant’s liability for income tax and that the Minister’s collection activity is limited to the amount of tax owing when that basis of assessment is given effect.

[3]               The difficulty with this argument is that it amounts to a collateral attack on the reassessment issued by the Minister as well as on of the Tax Court of Canada decision’s dismissing the appellant’s appeal from that reassessment (2013 TCC 354).The amount of tax payable by a taxpayer is assessed by the Minister (ss. 152(1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) “the ITA”) and is communicated to the taxpayer in a notice of assessment (ss. 152(2)) or reassessment (ss. 152(4)). Any challenge to the amount of tax payable must proceed by way of an appeal from the assessment or reassessment to the Tax Court of Canada which has exclusive original jurisdiction over appeals from assessments (ss. 165(7) of the ITA and ss. 12(1) of the Tax Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-2.

[4]               The appellant concedes, as he must, that the correctness of the amount of tax for which he was liable could have been raised before the Tax Court of Canada but, for reasons best known to the appellant, that was not done. Given this right of appeal, section 18.5 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 deprives this Court of jurisdiction in this matter.

[5]               For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed with costs in the amount agreed between the parties.

"J.D. Denis Pelletier"

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: