Tardif
J.T.C.C.:
—
This
is
an
appeal
from
a
decision
rendered
on
February
8,
1994
confirming
a
notice
of
assessment
issued
on
October
6,
1993
denying
the
appellant
the
married
credit.
The
facts
supporting
the
notice
of
assessment
issued
on
October
6,
1993,
confirmed
on
February
8,
1994,
are
described
in
subparagraphs
9(a)
to
9(j)
inclusive.
Of
those
facts,
the
appellant
admitted
the
following:
(a)
during
the
1992
taxation
year,
the
appellant
was
married
to
Nicole
Bourboin
and
both
lived
at
the
same
address;
(b)
the
short
income
tax
return
form
of
the
appellant’s
spouse
for
the
1992
taxation
year
was
signed
by
her
and
dated
February
22,
1993;
(c)
the
appellant’s
short
income
tax
return
form
for
the
1992
taxation
year
was
signed
by
him
and
dated
February
24,
1993;
(d)
on
her
short
income
tax
return
form
for
the
1992
taxation
year,
the
appellant’s
spouse
reported
income
of
$34,233.54;
(e)
at
line
24
entitled
“Spouse’s
or
common
law
spouse’s
net
income”
in
his
short
tax
return
for
the
1992
taxation
year,
the
appellant
entered
a
dash
(
-
);
(f)
the
appellant’s
income
tax
return
was
the
subject
of
an
initial
notice
of
assessment
by
the
Minister
on
April
14,
1993;
(g)
the
tax
return
of
the
appellant’s
spouse
was
the
subject
of
an
initial
notice
of
assessment
by
the
Minister
on
June
7,
1993;
(i)
interest
at
a
prescribed
annual
rate
is
payable
in
respect
of
income
tax
unpaid
after
the
date
on
which
the
return
of
income
must
be
filed;
(j)
on
October
6,
1993,
the
date
of
the
reassessment,
the
amount
of
interest
payable
on
arrears
in
respect
of
the
1992
taxation
year
amounted
to
$29.81;
The
issue
thus
essentially
concerns
the
content
of
subparagraph
9(h),
which
reads
as
follows:
[Translation.]
(h)
at
the
time
the
return
of
the
appellant’s
spouse
was
assessed,
the
Minister
noted
that
her
net
income
was
greater
than
his,
thus
entitling
the
appellant
to
the
married
credit
under
paragraph
118(1
)(a)
of
the
Acct.
[Translation.]
The
appellant
claims
that
the
Minister
erred
in
processing
his
return;
as
the
alleged
error
benefitted
the
appellant,
the
latter
claimed
that
the
Minister
could
not
amend
his
decision
and
send
him
a
notice
of
reassessment.
First
of
all,
there
was
no
evidence
that
an
error
was
committed
in
processing
the
appellant’s
return.
The
answer
provided
at
line
24
entitled
“Spouse’s
or
common
law
spouse’s
net
income”
suggested
that
the
appellant’s
spouse
had
no
income
for
that
taxation
year,
as
a
result
of
which
his
return
was
processed
accordingly.
The
filing
of
the
appellant’s
spouse’s
short
tax
return
dated
February
24,
1993
had
the
effect
of
resolving
the
ambiguity
created
by
the
answer
provided
at
line
24
and
thus
resulted
in
an
entirely
legitimate
notice
of
reassessment.
Furthermore,
even
if
the
notice
of
assessment
of
October
6,
1993
had
resulted
from
an
error,
the
appellant
could
not
claim
any
right
as
a
result
of
that
error.
The
Federal
Court
of
Appeal
has
clearly
recognized
the
Minister’s
power
to
assess
at
any
time.
The
only
constraint
on
the
Minister’s
right
of
reassessment
is
the
three-year
time
period,
although,
in
specific
circumstances
clearly
provided
for
by
the
Act,
it
is
possible
to
go
back
further
than
three
years.
In
the
instant
case,
the
respondent
was
fully
justified
in
reassessing
upon
discovering
new
information.
For
these
reasons,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content