Rip
T.C.J.:
Daniel
Rice
has
made
an
application
for
an
extension
of
time
to
file
a
notice
of
objection
to
his
income
tax
assessment
for
1995.
The
notice
of
reassessment
for
1995
was
dated
and
mailed
to
Mr.
Rice
on
March
25,
1996.
The
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(“Minister”)
subsequently
reassessed
Mr.
Rice’s
1995
taxation
year
and
a
notice
of
reassessment
was
dated
and
mailed
to
Mr.
Rice
on
June
23,
1997.
On
April
16,
1998,
Mr.
Rice
served
a
notice
of
objection
and
an
application
for
an
extension
of
time
to
file
an
objection
to
the
reassessment.
By
letter
dated
May
6,
1998,
Revenue
Canada
advised
Mr.
Rice
that
the
Minister
cannot
grant
his
application
since
he
did
not
demonstrate
that
the
application
for
the
extension
was
made
as
soon
as
circumstances
permitted
and
that
he
did
not
demonstrate
that
within
the
period
allowed
for
serving
an
objection
he
was
unable
to
act
or
instruct
another
to
act
on
his
behalf,
or
that
he
had
a
bona
fide
intention
to
object
to
the
reassessment.
Mr.
Rice
was
advised
by
the
writer
of
the
letter
that
if
he
disagrees
with
Revenue
Canada’s
decision
he
may
make
a
further
application
to
this
Court
provided
that
the
application
be
made
within
90
days
of
the
mailing
of
the
letter,
that
is
90
days
from
May
6,
1998.
The
facts
surrounding
Mr.
Rice’s
application
for
extension
of
time
to
file
a
notice
of
objection
are
sad.
Mr.
Rice
became
ill
on
May
5,
1998
and
was
subsequently
diagnosed
with
a
brain
tumour.
On
May
27,
1998
underwent
brain
surgery.
He
developed
an
infection
and
he
has
been
in
and
out
of
the
hospital
on
several
occasions
since.
According
to
his
spouse,
Eunice
McDonald,
who
acted
as
his
agent
and
who
testified
together
with
Mr.
Rice,
Mr.
Rice
had
evidence
of
a
tumour
for
at
least
three
years
prior
to
becoming
ill
and
he
had
difficulties
that
“we
did
not
know
about”.
Ms.
McDonald
described
her
husband
as
being
erratic
and
very
difficult
to
deal
with
before
he
actually
became
ill.
Mr.
Rice
filed
his
1995
tax
return
on
the
basis
that
his
wife
had
no
income
for
income
tax
purposes.
Mr.
Rice’s
spouse
testified
that
she
is
an
Indian
who
is
exempt
from
tax
under
the
Indian
Act.
Mr.
Rice
was
reassessed
on
the
basis
that
the
income
his
spouse
earned
in
1995
was
subject
to
income
tax
and
therefore
he
was
denied
claims
for,
amongst
other
things,
marital
exemption.
Counsel
for
the
Minister
informed
me
that
according
to
the
material
in
Mr.
Rice’s
file,
Ms.
McDonald
did
not
file
any
notice
of
objection
to
her
1995
assessment
in
which
the
Minister
included
the
disputed
income
in
her
income.
There
is
no
evidence
whether
or
not
Ms.
McDonald
reported
that
income
or
the
Minister
added
it
to
her
declared
income.
Ms.
McDonald
stated
that
she
could
not
say
whether
or
not
she
objected
to
her
assessment
for
1995.
Mr.
Rice
also
testified.
He
has
difficulty
with
his
speech
but
was
able
to
make
himself
understood.
I
have
no
doubt
that
both
Mr.
Rice
and
Ms.
McDonald
testified
truthfully.
Ms.
McDonald
stated
that
when
the
notice
of
reassessment
was
received
by
her
husband,
he
was
of
the
view
that
since
the
increase
in
his
assessment
was
due
to
his
wife’s
income
she,
not
he,
should
object.
He
was
not
being
reasonable,
she
said.
As
I
stated
earlier
the
facts
are
sad,
if
not
tragic.
The
problem
before
me
is
that
I
am
faced
with
the
provisions
of
subsection
166.2(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
(“Act”)
which
provides
that
where
a
taxpayer
has
made
an
application
for
an
extension
of
time
to
file
a
notice
of
objection
after
being
refused
by
the
Minister,
the
taxpayer
may
apply
to
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
to
have
the
application
granted
but
no
application
may
be
made
after
the
expiration
of
90
days
after
the
day
on
which
the
Minister’s
decision
rejecting
the
original
application
was
made.
The
Minister
notified
Mr.
Rice
on
May
6,
1998
that
his
application
for
extension
of
time
was
rejected.
Mr.
Rice
had
90
days
from
May
6th,
that
1s,
until
August
4,
1998,
to
apply
to
the
Court
to
have
the
application
granted.
Unfortunately,
Mr.
Rice
did
not
file
the
application
until
October
29,
1998.
There
is
no
provision
in
the
Act
to
permit
me
at
this
time
to
extend
the
time
to
file
a
notice
of
objection
on
the
basis
that
Mr.
Rice
was
ill
in
1998
and
was
unable
to
attend
to
his
affairs.
With
regret,
I
must
dismiss
the
application
of
Mr.
Rice.
However,
this
may
be
a
matter
which,
if
Mr.
Rice’s
spouse
is
truly
exempted
from
tax
under
the
provisions
of
the
Indian
Act,
the
Minister
and
the
Treasury
Board
may
wish
to
consider
favourably
a
remission
of
tax
to
Mr.
Rice
under
the
provisions
of
the
Financial
Administration
Act.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content