Brulé,
T.C.CJ.:—The
decision
in
this
case
dismissing
the
appeal
was
given
from
the
bench
but
some
of
the
circumstances
are
worth
noting.
The
appellant,
under
oath,
admitted
she
did
not
carry
on
any
business
in
the
taxation
year
1987,
the
subject
of
this
appeal.
Further
she
indicated
that
the
tax
preparer
had
her
sign
a
blank
tax
return
and
also
she
signed,
without
understanding,
the
notice
of
appeal.
It
is
interesting
to
examine
the
notice
of
appeal
which
is
copied
below:
Notice
of
appeal
(informal
procedure)
Tax
Court
of
Canada
Between:
Esmeline
Cameron:
petitioner
80
Alton
Tower
Circle
#205
Scarborough,
Ontario
MiV
5E8
And:
Her
Majesty
The
Queen:
respondent
Take
notice
that
Esmeline
Cameron
appeals
to
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
from
the
Minister's
notice
of
confirmation
dated
February
23,
1993,
in
respect
of
the
1987
taxation
year.
The
statement
of
facts
are:
The
Minister
showed
prejudice
in
reassessing
the
taxpayer's
1987
income
tax
return.
At
no
time
was
the
taxpayer
informed
by
the
Minister
that
her
income
tax
return
for
1987
was
under
review,
and
allow
her
the
opportunity
to
provide
a
defence
or
under
what
section
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
her
claim
was
denied.
The
taxpayer
considers
that
she
is
being
harassed
and
her
constitutional
right
is
being
violated.
The
taxpayer
further
elects
to
have
the
informal
procedure
provided
by
sections
18.1
to
18.28
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
Act
apply
to
this
appeal.
The
taxpayer
wishes
to
have
Douglas
Jones
of
94
Meldazy
Drive,
Scarborough,
Ontario,
M1P
4G3,
telephone
(416)
289-0492
to
act
as
her
representative.
By
suggesting
that
the
appellant's
constitutional
right
was
being
violated
it
became
necessary
under
subsection
57(1)
of
the
Federal
Court
Act
to
advise
the
Attorney
General
of
Canada
and
the
Attorney
General
of
each
province,
thus
causing
some
consternation
with
the
alleged
problem.
In
view
of
the
appellant's
evidence
that
she
did
not
carry
on
a
business
in
1987,
and
signed
a
blank
tax
return
for
that
year
and
a
notice
of
appeal
without
understanding
the
contents,
one
might
only
assume
that
this
return
was
a
scam
being
perpetrated
on
Revenue
Canada
by
the
tax
preparer.
It
is
to
be
hoped
that
the
said
Douglas
Jones
has
not
been
involved
in
any
similar
incidents
which
may
not
have
been
detected.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content