Goetz,
T.C.C.J.:—By
notice
of
motion
of
counsel
for
the
Minister
the
following
relief
was
requested:
(a)
a
request
for
directions
confirming
that
the
Honourable
Judge
Goetz
in
his
Judgment
dated
November
8,
1990
did
not
address
a
Notice
of
Appeal
dated
June
2,
1989
filed
by
the
appellant
which
Notice
of
Appeal
was
with
respect
to
Assessment
Number
1445
dated
May
24,
1989;
(b)
a
request
for
an
Order
dismissing
the
Notice
of
Appeal
dated
June
2,
1989
pertaining
to
Notice
of
Assessment
Number
1445
dated
May
24,
1989
on
the
ground
that
the
appeal
is
invalid
since
a
Notice
of
Objection
to
this
Assessment
was
not
filed
prior
to
the
Notice
of
Appeal
being
filed;
(c)
alternatively,
a
request
that
if
this
Honourable
Court
did
address
the
Notice
of
Appeal
dated
June
2,
1989
pertaining
to
Notice
of
Assessment
Number
1445
dated
May
24,
1989,
it
dismissed
the
said
appeal
(Note:
in
subparagraph
(c)
of
the
respondent's
Notice
of
Motion
there
is
a
typographical
error
in
that
the
Notice
of
Appeal
is
said
to
be
dated
May
24,
1989);
(d)
such
further
relief
as
may
seem
just,
In
the
course
of
proceedings
relative
to
the
appellant's
notice
of
appeal,
the
appellant
forwarded
a
"notice
of
appeal-factum"
directly
to
this
Court
rather
than
to
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
and
used
the
same
Tax
Court
Registry
number
84-694(IT)
which
had
been
allocated
to
its
first
notice
of
appeal.
This
is
apparently
why
it
was
not
dealt
with
in
a
substantive
way
at
a
hearing
on
a
motion
in
October
1990
which
related
to
its
first
notice
of
appeal.
Neither
the
respondent
or
the
appellant
alluded
thereto
in
such
a
manner
as
to
bring
to
the
attention
of
the
Court
that
it
in
fact
existed.
It
was
therefore
not
dealt
with
or
addressed
by
the
Court.
The“
"notice
of
appeal-factum”
related
to
an
assessment
number
1445
which
was
another
assessment
under
subsection
160(2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
"Act")
involving
a
transfer
of
cash
from
Hadi
Sarraf
to
495187
Ontario
Ltd.,
whereas
the
appellant's
first
appeal
related
to
Assessment
number
468044
dated
January
13,
1984
which
related
to
a
transfer
of
cash
from
374594
Ontario
Ltd.
to
495187
Ontario
Ltd.
(the
appellant
in
this
case).
The
appellant
argues
that
subsection
165(7)
of
the
Act
assists
him
in
that
it
claims
that
there
was
a
reassessment
or
an
additional
assessment
relating
to
assessment
468044.
The
appellant
admitted
that
it
did
not
file
a
notice
of
objection
prior
to
the
filing
of
the"
notice
of
appeal-factum"
and
that
being
so,
I
find
that
his"
notice
of
appeal-factum"
dated
June
2,
1989
was
defective
in
that
it
did
not
comply
with
the
requirements
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
Assessment
number
468044
and
assessment
number
1445
related
to
entirely
different
transactions
in
which
the
appellant
was
involved
in
the
year
1982
and
assessment
1445
was
not
a
reassessment
or
an
additional
assessment
relating
to
assessment
468044.
The
assessments
related
to
different
issues
and
with
two
different
entities
at
law.
Consequently,
the
appellant
could
not
avail
himself
of
the
provisions
of
subsection
165(7)
of
the
Act.
The
Court's
judgment
of
November
8,
1990
did
not
address
the
"notice
of
appeal-factum”
dated
June
2,
1989
and
in
that
the
appellant
has
failed
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
namely,
the
filing
of
a
notice
of
objection
prior
to
the
filing
of
a
notice
of
appeal,
such
"notice
of
appeal-factum"
is
dismissed.
The
appellant
is
the
author
of
his
own
misfortune
which
was
brought
about
by
his
attaching
to
his
"notice
of
appeal-factum"
docket
number
84-694(IT).
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content