Docket: A-426-15
Citation: 2017 FCA 71
[ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
| CORAM:
|
GAUTHIER J.A.
BOIVIN J.A.
DE MONTIGNY J.A.
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| JEAN STEIN
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
| Respondent
|
Heard at Montreal, Quebec, on April 4, 2017.
Judgment delivered at Montreal, Quebec, on April 5, 2017.
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
|
BOIVIN J.A.
|
| CONCURRED IN BY:
|
GAUTHIER J.A.
DE MONTIGNY J.A.
|
Docket: A-426-15
Citation: 2017 FCA 71
| CORAM:
|
GAUTHIER J.A.
BOIVIN J.A.
DE MONTIGNY J.A.
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| JEAN STEIN
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
| Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BOIVIN J.A.
[1]
Mr. Stein is a proponent of [translation] “human taxation”, a theory according to which he is not a person subject to the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) (the Act).
[2]
The Minister of National Revenue imposed a penalty on Mr. Stein after determining that he knowingly or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence, made false statements in the context of assessments in respect of the 2003 to 2007 and 2009 taxation years. The assessments themselves were not challenged before this Court. As was the case in the Tax Court of Canada, the sole issue concerns only the imposition of the penalty under subsection 163(2) of the Act.
[3]
Mr. Stein is appealing from a decision of Justice Favreau dated July 9, 2015, in which he dismissed his appeal of the penalty imposed pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the Act.
[4]
The appellant did not satisfy us that Justice Favreau erred in his assessment of the evidence, nor in his analysis of the applicable principles. At the hearing, Mr. Stein attempted to raise arguments that were not in his memorandum of fact and law, which we cannot deal with. Accordingly, and for essentially the same reasons as those stated by Justice Favreau, I would dismiss the appeal with costs.
“Richard Boivin”
“I agree.
Johanne Gauthier J.A.”
“I agree.
Yves de Montigny J.A.”
Email this Content