Docket: A-316-13
Citation: 2015 FCA 196
|
CORAM:
|
DAWSON J.A.
RYER J.A.
NEAR J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
JONATHAN
HAYFRON-BENJAMIN
|
|
Appellant
|
|
and
|
|
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered
from the Bench at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on September 16, 2015).
Ryer J.A.
[1]
This appeal by Mr. Jonathan Hayfron-Benjamin
(the “Taxpayer”) relates to three judgments of
Justice Patrick Boyle (the “Tax Court Judge”) of
the Tax Court of Canada in Dockets 2011-3625 (IT)I, 2011-3626 (IT)I and
2011-4868 (IT)I, reported as 2013 TCC 222.
[2]
The appeal relates to the Taxpayer’s 2008, 2009
and 2010 taxation years in respect of which he was reassessed under the Income
Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) (the “Act”) on the
basis that he failed to report amounts required to be included into his income
in each of those years. The reassessments for 2009 and 2010 also included
penalties imposed under subsection 163(1) of the Act in respect of repeated
underreporting of income.
[3]
The Tax Court Judge determined that the
reassessed amounts of unreported income had all been subject to income tax
withholdings and T4 or T5 information return reporting (the “T4s”).
Accordingly, he concluded that, as a practical matter, the issue before him was
the validity of the 10% penalties that were assessed against the Taxpayer under
subsection 163(1) of the Act for 2009 and 2010.
[4]
In the Tax Court of Canada, the Taxpayer
asserted that he had never worked for, or been paid by, the three companies
that issued the T4s to him in respect of the unreported amounts of income, and
that he must have been a victim of Social Insurance Number fraud.
[5]
The Tax Court Judge considered evidence of
connections between the Taxpayer and the three companies that issued the T4s to
him. This evidence indicated:
•
The Taxpayer worked in information technology
and in call centres.
•
The three companies that issued T-4s to the
Taxpayer were engaged in those business areas.
•
The T-4s issued by those companies contained the
Taxpayer’s correct name and Social Insurance Number.
•
Two of the companies provided written
confirmation that they made payments to the Taxpayer.
•
The Taxpayer did not attempt to contact the
companies that issued the T-4s to ask why they had issued those T-4s to him.
•
The Taxpayer’s complaint of identity theft was
rejected by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.
[6]
In dismissing the Taxpayer’s appeals and
upholding the reassessments for 2008, 2009 and 2010, the Tax Court Judge found
that the evidence before him established that the Taxpayer had worked for, and
received payments from, the three companies that had issued the T-4s to him. In
addition, the Tax Court Judge concluded that he was unable to accept, as
credible, the Taxpayer’s testimony that he had never worked for, or received
payments from, the three companies that issued the T4s to him and that he had
been the subject of identity theft.
[7]
In this appeal, the Taxpayer disputes these
factual findings made by the Tax Court Judge. To succeed, the Taxpayer must
demonstrate that the Tax Court Judge made a palpable and overriding error in
making such findings (see Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2
S.C.R. 235, at paragraph 25).
[8]
In our view, the evidence before the Tax Court
Judge was sufficient to enable him to make the factual findings that are
challenged by the Taxpayer. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Tax Court
Judge made no palpable and overriding error in making those findings.
[9]
For these reasons, the Taxpayer’s appeal will be
dismissed with costs.
“C. Michael Ryer”
Email this Content