Cardin,
TCJ:—The
appeal
of
Mr
Joseph
Sobkow
is
from
an
assessment
of
tax
with
respect
to
the
1980
taxation
year
by
which
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
levied
an
instalment
interest
charge
in
the
amount
of
$93.66
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
section
156
and
subsections
161(2)
and
161(4)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
SC
1970-71-72,
c
63
as
amended.
The
appellant
who
represented
himself
at
the
hearing
objected,
among
other
things,
to
the
instalment
interest
charge
and
stated
that
he
could
not
understand
why
he
would
have
to
make
any
instalment
payments
in
1980.
The
appellant
was
neither
a
farmer
nor
a
fisherman
and
was
not
in
receipt
of
employment
income
in
1980.
The
source
of
the
appellant’s
yearly
income
was
his
pensions
and
interest
on
investments,
as
shown
on
the
schedule
attached
to
the
appellant’s
T-l
return
for
1980
(Exhibit
R-l).
According
to
the
Department
of
National
Revenue’s
computer
print-out
with
respect
to
the
appellant’s
federal
tax
payable
for
preceding
years
(Exhibit
R-2),
the
appellant’s
federal
tax
payable
for
1977
was
$616.16;
for
1978
it
was
$876.30;
for
1979
it
was
$682.02;
and
for
1980
it
was
$1,745.90.
In
estimating
his
1980
federal
tax
payable
on
his
1979
actual
dividend
income
($5,965.00)
he
established
dividend
income
for
1980
at
$6,000.
The
dividend
income
actually
earned
by
the
appellant,
which
appears
in
his
1980
tax
return,
is
$60.
By
wrongly
claiming
a
federal
dividend
tax
credit
of
25
per
cent
on
$6,000
the
appellant’s
computation
of
his
total
federal
tax
payable
in
1980
was
$395
an
amount
which
in
accordance
with
subsection
156(1)
of
the
Act
would
have
required
no
instalment
payment
had
the
appellant’s
computation
been
correct.
However,
the
appellant’s
actual
federal
tax
payable
based
on
his
1980
tax
return
was,
as
stated
in
the
computer
print-out,
$1,745.90
requiring
instalment
payments
in
accordance
with
subsection
156(1)
of
the
Act.
The
appellant
did
not
make
any
instalment
payments
on
$1,745.90,
tax
payable,
in
1980
and
an
instalment
interest
charge
of
$93.66
was
levied
in
accordance
with
subsections
161(2)
and
161(4)
of
the
Act.
With
respect
to
the
effect
of
subsection
161(4)
of
the
Act
which
reads
as
follows:
(4)
For
the
purposes
of
subsection
(2),
where
an
individual
is
required
to
pay
a
part
or
instalment
of
tax
for
a
taxation
year
computed
by
reference
to
(a)
the
amount
estimated
by
him
to
be
the
tax
payable
under
this
Part
by
him
for
the
year,
or
(b)
his
instalment
base
for
the
immediately
preceding
taxation
year,
he
shall
be
deemed
to
have
been
liable
to
pay
a
part
or
instalment
computed
by
reference
to
the
lesser
of
(c)
the
amount,
if
any,
by
which
the
tax
payable
under
this
Part
by
him
for
the
year
exceeds
the
amount
deemed
by
subsection
120(2)
to
have
been
paid
on
account
of
his
tax
under
this
Part
for
the
year,
and
(d)
his
instalment
base
for
the
immediately
preceding
taxation
year.
I
fully
concur
with
the
remarks
made
by
my
colleague,
Judge
Taylor,
in
deciding
in
the
case
of
G
Y
R
Allen
v
MNR,
[1981]
CTC
2107;
81
DTC
104,
which
he
stated
at
2110
[106]:
.
.
.
As
I
read
the
above-referred
section,
individuals
coming
under
the
provisions
of
Section
156(1)
of
the
Act
run
the
risk
of
an
interest
charge
when
instalments
made
do
not
equal
or
exceed
the
income
tax
paid
for
the
previous
year.
Estimating
his
dividend
income
at
$6,000
for
1980,
as
of
June
1,
1980,
and
not
revising
his
estimate
at
any
time
during
the
year
in
which
only
$60
was
earned
in
dividend
was
not
only
unreasonable
but
most
imprudent
and
Taylor,
TCJ’s
remarks
in
Allen,
(supra),
is
applicable
a
fortiori
to
this
appellant’s
estimate
of
federal
tax
payable.
The
respondent
properly
levied
an
instalment
interest
charge
of
$93.66.
The
appeal
is
therefore
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content