McArthur
J.T.C.C.:-This
is
an
application
for
an
order
extending
the
time
within
which
the
applicant
may
serve
on
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(the
"Minister”)
a
notice
of
objection
in
respect
of
the
1992
taxation
year.
The
relevant
facts
are
as
follows:
1.
The
Minister
assessed
the
applicant
for
the
1992
taxation
year
by
notice
of
assessment
dated
and
mailed
to
the
applicant
at
713
Beecher
Avenue,
Winnipeg,
Manitoba,
R2V
4R1
on
June
2,
1993.
2.
The
applicant
served
a
notice
of
objection
to
the
said
assessment
on
the
Minister
on
June
22,
1994,
which
date
is
not
within
the
time
limited
by
subsection
165(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1985
(5th
Supp.),
c.
1
(the
’’Act”).
3.
An
application
dated
July
21,
1994
under
section
16.1
of
the
Act
for
an
extension
of
time
within
which
to
serve
on
the
Minister
a
notice
of
objection
to
the
said
assessment
was
received
by
the
Minister
on
or
after
July
21,
1994.
4.
Upon
receipt
of
the
said
application,
the
Minister
considered
it,
but
refused
to
extend
the
time
for
serving
a
notice
of
objection
and
notified
the
applicant
of
his
decision
by
mail
on
August
8,
1994.
5.
An
application
under
subsection
166.2(1)
for
an
extension
of
time
for
serving
a
notice
of
objection
was
received
by
this
Court
on
September
7,
1994.
On
becoming
aware
of
the
decision
in
Thibaudeau
v.
Canada,
[1994]
2
C.T.C.
1,
94
D.T.C.
6230
(F.C.A.);
rev’g
[1992]
2
C.T.C.
2497,
92
D.T.C.
2098
(F.C.T.D.),
the
applicant
filed
a
notice
of
objection
on
June
22,
1994,
within
one
year
plus
90-day
period.
Subsection
166.2(5)
of
the
Act
provides:
166.2(5)
When
application
to
be
granted.—No
application
shall
be
granted
under
this
section
unless
(a)
the
application
was
made
under
subsection
166.1(1)
within
one
year
after
the
expiration
of
the
time
otherwise
limited
by
this
Act
for
serving
a
notice
of
objection
or
making
a
request,
as
the
case
may
be;
and
(b)
the
taxpayer
demonstrates
that
(i)
within
the
time
otherwise
limited
by
this
Act
for
serving
such
a
notice
or
making
such
a
request,
as
the
case
may
be,
the
taxpayer
(A)
was
unable
to
act
or
to
instruct
another
to
act
in
the
taxpayer’s
name,
or
(B)
had
a
bona
fide
intention
to
object
to
the
assessment
or
make
the
request,
(ii)
given
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
application
and
the
circumstances
of
the
case,
it
would
be
just
and
equitable
to
grant
the
application
and,
(iii)
the
application
was
made
under
subsection
166.1(1)
as
soon
as
circumstances
permitted.
The
thrust
of
the
respondent’s
argument
was
based
on
subparagraph
166.2(5)(b)(i).
In
the
case
of
Marion
D'Arcy
v.
The
Queen,
with
facts
similar
to
the
present
case,
Christie
A.C.J.T.C.
said
the
following:
It
is
perfectly
clear
that
what
precipitated
the
applicant’s
desire
to
object
to
the
Minister’s
assessment
was
the
fact
of
the
decision
of
the
Federal
Court
of
Appeal
in
Thibaudeau.
That
decision
was
made
public
on
May
3,
1994.
Prior
to
that
date
it
would
have
been
treated
in
strict
confidence
by
members
of
the
Court
and
its
employees.
Whatever
may
be
the
scope
of
clause
(A)
I
do
not
think
that
a
taxpayer
can
demonstrate
an
inability
to
serve
a
notice
of
objection
or
not
instruct
another
to
do
so
by
a
prescribed
date
if
prior
to
that
time
there
is
to
her
knowledge
nothing
in
existence
that
would
motivate
her
to
adopt
that
course
of
action.
The
existence
of
inability
to
act
or
to
instruct
another
to
act
with
reference
to
serving
a
notice
of
objection
presupposes
the
presence,
prior
to
the
time
limit
imposed
by
the
Act,
of
a
desire
on
the
part
of
a
taxpayer
to
effect
such
service.
Further
I
cannot
appreciate
how,
in
the
circumstances
just
described,
a
taxpayer
could
go
through
the
mental
process
of
forming
a
bona
fide
intention
to
object
to
an
assessment.
At
the
time
the
applicant
was
required
to
have
that
intention
she
was
oblivious
to
the
existence
of
the
fact
that
subsequently
impelled
her
desire
to
object.
I
agree
with
this
reasoning
and
adopt
it
as
my
own.
It
is
well
established
jurisprudence
that
the
taxpayer
cannot
rely
on
lack
of
awareness
of
legislation
or
misleading
advice
from
her
solicitor
and
Revenue
Canada
to
advance
her
position.
For
these
reasons,
the
application
is
denied.
Application
denied.
Email this Content