Taylor
J.T.C.C.:
—
This
is
an
appeal,
under
the
Informal
Procedure,
heard
in
Victoria,
British
Columbia
on
July
9,
1996,
against
an
assessment
under
the
Income
Tax
Act
(the
“Act”)
for
the
year
1992,
in
which
the
Respondent
included
in
income
the
amount
of
$12,175.24
in
respect
of
proceeds
withdrawn
by
the
Appellant
from
a
registered
retirement
savings
plan.
The
Notice
of
Appeal
dated
August
3,
1995,
and
the
Reply
to
Notice
of
Appeal
dated
October
25,
1995
present
adequately
—
and
I
believe
com-
pletely
—
the
respective
situations
and
perspectives
of
the
parties.
To
whatever
degree
useful,
these
filings
are
to
be
considered
an
integral
part
of
these
reasons.
The
Appellant,
at
the
trial,
read
into
the
record
a
further
twenty
page
account
of
the
historical
circumstances
as
he
saw
them,
the
comments
he
wished
to
make
on
the
Respondent’s
assumptions
from
the
Reply
(above),
and
his
demands
for
action
and
decision
from
the
Court.
Mr.
Cowie
had
put
a
great
deal
of
effort
into
the
research
for,
and
the
preparation
of
this
written
presentation,
and
he
deserves
credit
for
his
efforts
and
persistence.
However,
as
I
read
the
document,
and
as
I
recall
his
interjections
and
explanations
during
the
presentation
it
deals
primarily
with
three
criticisms
of
the
process:
(1)
The
standing,
before
the
Court
at
this
trial
of
Counsel
for
the
Respondent,
(2)
the
validity
and
acceptability
of
the
Respondent’s
Reply
to
Notice
of
Appeal,
and
(3)
the
onus
on
the
Appellant
to
meet
the
challenge
presented
in
the
Respondent’s
assessment
at
issue.
I
heard
Mr.
Cowie’s
view
on
these
points,
which
represented
to
him
questions
dealing
with
his
fundamental
rights
as
a
citizen
and
as
a
taxpayer,
particularly
such
rights
as
are
enshrined
in
Canada’s
Constitution
and
the
Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms.
It
was
the
position
of
Counsel
for
the
Respondent
that
there
had
been
no
violation
of
these
rights
in
this
matter
that
in
any
way
warranted
the
result
demanded
by
Mr.
Cowie
—
allowing
the
appeal.
In
my
opinion,
it
can
not
be
said
that
the
evidence
available
to
the
Court
supports
the
position
of
the
Appellant,
on
any
one
of
the
three
points
above.
It
is
my
finding
that:
(1)
Counsel
for
the
Respondent
has
proper
standing
before
the
Court,
(2)
the
Reply
to
Notice
of
Appeal
is
proper
and
meets
the
requirements
under
the
Act,
(3)
the
onus
for
overturning
the
assessment
rests
with
Mr.
Cowie.
Turning
them
to
the
merits
of
the
appeal
itself
—
I
quote
the
issue
as
described
in
the
Reply
to
Notice
of
Appeal:
The
issue
to
be
decided
is
whether
the
Minister
properly
included
the
Proceeds,
to
the
extent
the
portion
thereof
not
exceeding
the
Contributions,
in
computing
the
Appellant’s
income
for
the
1992
taxation
year.
He
(the
Respondent)
relies
on
section
146.01
of
the
Act,
as
amended
for
the
1992
taxation
year.
I
have
the
greatest
sympathy
for
Mr.
Cowie,
and
I
understand
the
predicament
in
which
he
finds
himself.
At
the
same
time,
the
Act
is
clear,
the
proceeds
of
$12,175.24
must
be
included
in
the
Appellant’s
income.
There
might
have
been
some
relief
available
to
him
under
paragraph
146.01(9)
of
the
Act
in
other
circumstances,
(and
I
am
not
called
on
to
decide
that),
but
the
fact
is
that
in
this
situation
the
spouse
of
Mr.
Cowie
was
not
the
annuitant
under
the
plan
involved,
as
I
understand
it.
The
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content