Henry Dasko v. Her Majesty the Queen (Informal Procedure), [1993] 2 CTC 2468

Taylor, T.C.C.J.:—This is an appeal heard in Toronto, Ontario, on March 8, 1993, under the informal procedure rules of the Tax Court. The issue was whether the respondent had acted properly — according to sections 150 and 162 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act") in assessing a late filing penalty of $3,146.94 for the year 1989.

It was the position of the appellant that neither he, nor either of the two possible "agents", Mr. Brown, acting for the appellant at the hearing, or Mintz & Partners, Chartered Accountants an earlier representative had ever received the registered demand letter from Revenue Canada dated October 4, 1990.

It was the position of the respondent — supported both by testimony and documentation that such a demand had been sent by Revenue Canada, and to Mintz & Partners for whom Revenue Canada had an authorization form from the appellant which read as follows:

AUTHORIZATION NOTICE

TO THE DIRECTOR OF DISTRICT TAX OFFICE NUMBER 13

You are hereby authorized to discuss with and provide to a representative of:

Mintz & Partners CA's

1446 Don Mills Rd. Ste 100

Don Mills, Ontario M3B 3N6

any information concerning my T1 Tax Return for 1988 and prior taxation years. This authorization has effect until rescinded in writing.

Date:

April 29, 1989

Signature:

Henry Pasko

A further such authorization form was filed appointing Brown & Company as follows:

AUTHORIZATION NOTICE

TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE DISTRICT TAXATION OFFICE

This letter will be your authority to:

— Discuss my income tax affairs with:

Brown & Company

80 Queens Drive

Weston, Ont. MIN 2H6

— Release to them any additional information from my income tax file(s)

— Accept Brown & Company as my agent in requesting changes to returns and information filed with the office.

This authorization remains in effect until revoked by me in writing.

Date:

April 29,1989

Signature:

Henry Dasko

At the close of the hearing the Court specifically asked both parties if their understanding of the April 29, 1989 authorization above extended to providing Revenue Canada the authority to deal with Mintz & Partners for the year 1989 as well as for “1988 and prior years" which understanding they had indicated at the hearing. There was unqualified agreement that such should be the interpretation.

In my opinion, aside from all the other points — pro and con — raised at the hearing, the issue did come down to whether — even accepting that the respondent did send the registered demand to Mintz & Partners on August 4, 1990 — the demand should have been sent to either Mr. Brown or to the appellant personally, not Mintz & Partners, both avenues of which were argued by Mr. Brown.

I have the most serious reservations that the authorization of April 29, 1989 does provide the clear authority of Revenue Canada to continue to deal with Mintz & Partners beyond fiscal year 1988. But I must accept the interpretation agreed upon by the parties, and that closes the matter.

The appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.