Marceau
J.A.:
—
We
are
all
of
the
view
that
this
appeal
cannot
succeed.
We
think
that
the
learned
Tax
Court
judge
dealt
properly
with
the
issues
raised
and
we
substantially
agree
with
her
reasons.
It
is
clear
to
us,
as
it
was
to
her,
that
rule
57(2)
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
Rules
(General
Procedure
does
not
preclude
viva
voce
testimony
and
certainly
not
testimony
as
to
the
manner
in
which
a
reassessment
was
calculated
and
issued.
It
is
also
clear
that
the
September
30,
1993
reassessment
was
not
statute
barred
even
though
three
years
had
passed
since
the
first
assessment.
The
change
in
the
loss
carry-back
resulting
from
the
audit
of
the
1990
return
required
a
reassessment
of
the
available
section
111
loss
for
the
1989
year
and
extended
the
time
period
for
its
issuance
pursuant
to
paragraph
152(4)(c)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.*
As
for
the
contention
that
the
Alternative
Minimum
Tax
provisions
are
invalid
because
they
contravene
the
Charter,
specifically
section
15
thereof,
it
appears
to
us,
as
it
appeared
to
the
Tax
Court
judge,
simply
untenable.
The
only
argument
that
may
deserve
to
be
addressed
is
that
the
A.T.M.
carry-over
provisions
are
of
greater
benefit
to
persons
with
higher
incomes,
and
that
senior
citizens
are
more
likely
to
have
lower
incomes.
The
provisions
would,
therefore,
discriminate
on
the
basis
of
age.
The
reasoning,
however,
is
false.
It
is
well
established
that
laws
can
draw
a
distinction
between
persons
as
long
as
it
is
not
based
on
personal
characteristics.
No
such
distinction
is
made
here
as
the
only
distinguishing
characteristic
involved
is
relative
wealth
and
income.
The
appeal
will
be
dismissed
with
costs.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content