Taylor,
T.C.J.:—This
application
for
extension
of
time
within
which
to
file
a
notice
of
objection,
with
respect
to
the
year
1981,
was
heard
in
Toronto,
Ontario,
on
March
24,
1986.
The
notice
of
objection
in
dispute
contained
the
following
information:
FACTS
The
taxpayer
showed
a
wage
of
$10,000
from
376584
Ontario
Limited.
REASON
This
wage
was
not
received
by
the
taxpayer.
The
reply
to
application
for
extension
of
time
prepared
by
the
Minister
provided
this
additional
data:
—
A
Notice
of
Reassessment
was
issued
to
the
Applicant
in
respect
of
the
1981
taxation
year
on
August
20,
1984.
—
No
communications
were
received
by
the
Respondent
from
the
Applicant
or
his
representative
in
respect
of
the
1981
taxation
year
from
July
27,
1984
until
a
Notice
of
Objection
was
received
on
November
22,
1984.
—
The
Respondent
notified
the
Applicant
by
letter
dated
January
21,
1985
that
his
Notice
of
Objection
could
not
be
accepted
as
valid
as
it
was
not
submitted
within
the
prescribed
time
limit
of
90
days
from
the
day
of
mailing
of
the
assessment.
—
No
application
for
an
extension
of
time
for
filing
the
notice
of
objection
was
received
until
359
days
after
the
expiry
of
the
90
day
period
prescribed
in
subsection
165(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
—
.
.
.
the
application
for
an
order
extending
the
time
within
which
a
notice
of
objection
might
be
served
was
not
brought
as
soon
as
circumstances
permitted
it
to
be
brought,
within
the
meaning
of
subparagraph
167(5)(c)(ii)
of
the
Act.
Mr.
Pennington
explained
to
the
Court
that
during
the
period
from
January
21,
1985
(supra)
until
October
31,
1985
his
accountant
had
been
attempting
to
resolve
the
basic
issue
regarding
the
$10,000
amount
and
it
was
only
when
that
did
not
appear
to
be
showing
results
and
he
was
concerned
his
"one
year”
time
limit
might
expire,
that
he
filed
the
questioned
application
for
an
extension
of
time.
Counsel
for
the
Minister
relied
upon
the
following
cases:
Robert
Kidd
v.
M.N.R.,
[1983]
C.T.C.
2747;
83
D.T.C.
639
(T.C.C.);
Garry
R.
Harris
v.
M.N.R.,
[1985]
1
C.T.C.
2363;
85
D.T.C.
302
(T.C.C.);
William
McGill
v.
M.N.R.,
[1985]
2
C.T.C.
209;
85
D.T.C.
5439
(F.C.A.).
In
my
view,
the
position
of
the
appellant,
was
founded
in
his
interpretation
of
the
form
letter
from
Revenue
Canada
dated
January
21,
1985
(supra),
which
is
quoted
for
reference
purposes.
I
would
particularly
note
the
last
paragraph
of
the
letter.
RE:
Notice
of
Objection
dated
—
November
13,
1984,
Mailed
November
21,
1984
in
respect
of
assessment
for
the
taxation
year
1981.
The
above
Notice
of
Objection
was
not
submitted
within
the
prescribed
time
limit
of
90
days
from
the
day
of
mailing
of
the
Notice
of
Assessment
and
cannot
be
accepted
as
valid
under
the
Income
Tax
Act.
You
may,
however,
apply
to
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
for
an
extension
of
time
to
file
your
Notice
of
Objection.
No
special
form
is
required,
simply:
(A)
Set
out
in
writing
the
reasons
why
it
was
not
possible
to
file
a
Notice
of
Objection
within
the
prescribed
time
limit.
(B)
Send
three
copies
of
the
above
statement
and
of
the
Notice
of
Objection
to:
The
Registrar
Tax
Court
of
Canada
381
Kent
St.
Ottawa,
Ontario
K1A
0M1
Application
must
be
made
as
soon
as
possible
and
not
later
than
one
year
from
the
90-day
time
limit
for
the
mailing
of
a
Notice
of
Objection.
First,
it
is
quite
reasonable
to
accept
the
explanation
of
Mr.
Pennington,
that
he
did
not
gain
the
impression
from
reading
the
January
21,
1985
letter
(supra)
that
there
was
any
particular
requirement
for
undue
haste
in
filing
the
application,
but
rather,
while
it
would
be
advisable
to
do
so
early,
the
critical
factor
was
to
respect
the
'‘one
year”
time
limit
—
which
he
did.
I
am
quite
satisfied
that
at
any
time
before
October
31,
1985
the
circumstances
"permitted”
Mr.
Pennington
to
file
the
application
—
but
only
to
the
degree
that
his
pursuit
of
a
settlement
through
his
accountant's
efforts
did
not
prohibit
him
from
doing
so.
As
I
follow
his
explanation,
the
set
of
circumstances
which
developed
on
or
about
October
31,
1985,
which
instigated
his
filing
the
application,
was
that
he
decided
then
his
pursuit
of
such
a
settlement
was
not
going
to
be
successful
within
the
year
he
considered
to
be
available
to
him.
I
am
sure
that
it
might
have
been
more
prudent
for
him
to
have
filed
the
application
anyway,
but
that
is
not
the
basis
upon
which
the
application
should
be
viewed
now.
In
essence
the
Minister
by
contesting
this
application
is
saying
that
almost
immediately
upon
receipt
of
the
letter
dated
January
21,
1985
(supra)
Mr.
Pennington
should
have
filed
the
application,
in
order
to
comply
with
subparagraph
167(5)(c)(ii)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63,
as
amended.
Mr.
Pennington,
on
the
other
hand,
asserts
that
it
was
not
until
the
efforts
of
his
accountant
had
been
exhausted,
and
he
was
at
risk
of
losing
his
formal
right
to
object,
that
he
recognized
any
requirement
to
file
the
application.
I
would
be
more
content
with
this
matter,
if
Mr.
Pennington
had
provided
some
evidence
of
the
efforts
of
his
accountant
in
this
regard,
and
indeed
I
question
in
what
way
the
accountant
could
have
been
successful
in
such
efforts,
since
the
matter
was
not
formally
before
any
appropriate
party
in
Revenue
Canada
for
reso-
lution.
However
in
the
instance
of
this
appeal,
I
am
inclined
to
give
Mr.
Pennington
the
benefit
of
the
doubt.
I
am
strengthened
in
that
view,
by
the
comments
of
the
learned
Judges
in
Tic
Toc
Tours
Ltd.
v.
M.N.R.,
[1982]
C.T.C.
264;
82
D.T.C.
6231:
.
.
.
Subsection
167(2)
is
a
procedural
provision
which
merely
requires,
in
my
view,
that
the
applicant
set
forth
in
his
application
for
an
extension
of
time
the
reasons
why
the
notice
was
not
served
within
the
time
prescribed.
While
the
portion
of
the
Act
under
review
in
this
application,
is
subparagraph
167(5)(c)(ii),
and
not
subsection
167(2),
I
am
unable
to
reach
the
conclusion
that
the
Minister’s
view
of
the
phrase
‘‘as
soon
as
possible’
should
take
precedence
over
the
interpretation
of
that
phrase
by
the
appellant,
particularly
in
light
of
the
wording
of
the
form
letter
bringing
the
one-year
time
limit
to
the
attention
of
Mr.
Pennington.
The
application
is
granted.
Application
granted.
Email this Content