The
Chairman:—This
is
my
decision
in
the
application
of
Mr
Antonio
Arnone
for
an
extension
of
time
to
file
a
Notice
of
Objection
in
respect
of
the
1975
and
1976
taxation
years.
The
Minister
objects
or
opposes
the
application
with
reference
to
the
1975
taxation
year
on
the
grounds
that
there
is
no
issue.
The
fact
that
the
taxpayer
was
reassessed
subsequently
and
granted
what
was
asked
by
the
taxpayer
is
sufficient
reason
that
there
is
no
issue
between
the
parties
and
is
sufficient
reason
not
to
grant
the
application.
With
reference
to
the
1976
taxation
year,
the
Minister
opposes
the
application
on
the
grounds
that
there
are
not
sufficient
reasons
for
not
having
filed
the
objection
in
time.
The
taxpayer’s
representative
has
claimed
that
the
taxpayer
is
in
no
way
to
blame
for
not
having
filed
his
Notice
of
Objection
on
time.
There
has
been
a
considerable
amount
of
jurisprudence
on
the
question
of
late
filing
and
the
Board
has,
in
fact,
gotten
away
from
the
strict
following
of
the
Savary
Beach
Lands
Ltd
and
Savary
Resort
Properties
Ltd
v
MNR
case,
[1972]
CTC
2608;
72
DTC
1497,
which
was
a
very
strict
interpretation
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
It
did
so
because
of
what
appeared
to
be
a
problem
that
existed
and
the
Board
adopted
as
its
policy
to
consider
such
applications
with
reference
to
the
Minister’s
attitude
towards
it.
If
in
an
application
for
an
extension
of
time
the
Minister
does
not
oppose
the
application,
the
Board
has
adopted
the
policy
of
granting
it.
However,
if
the
Minister
opposes
the
application
then
the
Board
looks
into
the
merits
of
the
application.
This
has
been
done
by
Members
of
the
Board
on
several
occasions
which
have
been
cited,
and
I
feel
that
the
recent
case
law
on
applications
is
the
proper
one.
The
taxpayer
has
the
privilege
and
the
right
to
appeal
from
an
assessment
and
that
is
the
only
procedure
for
which
he
is
responsible.
The
Department
of
National
Revenue
has
millions
and
millions
of
cases
and
there
has
to
be
some
kind
of
an
order.
It
is
the
responsibility
of
the
taxpayer
who
wants
to
appeal
from
the
assessment
to
take
the
proper
steps
to
bring
the
appeal
to
hearing.
In
this
particular
case
the
taxpayer
did
take
some
steps.
He
applied
to
a
responsible
firm
of
chartered
accountants.
He
felt
that
his
assessment
was
in
good
hands
and
that
he
was
clear
and
I
feel
sorry
for
the
taxpayer.
However,
the
chartered
accountants
in
the
firm
are
professional
people.
They
are
responsible
people
and
they
charge
for
their
services
and
they
should
also
carry
out
whatever
duties
are
conferred
upon
them.
I
don’t
believe
that
the
reasons
given
in
the
letter
supporting
the
application
are
valid
and
I
shall,
for
the
record,
read
them:
I
enclose
notices
of
objection
for
the
above
taxpayer
for
the
years
1975
and
1976.
I
would
ask
for
an
extension
of
time
to
file
these
notices
on
the
following
basis:
1.
The
taxpayer
contacted
me
within
the
required
time
period.
2.
I
contacted
the
responsible
assessor
but
we
were
unable
to
arrange
a
meeting.
I
am
going
to
stop
here
and
say
that
that
is
not
sufficient.
The
filing
of
a
Notice
of
Objection
is
a
formal
legal
procedure
and
it
cannot
be
replaced
by
a
telephone
call
or
a
meeting.
3.
The
file
in
my
office
got
misplaced
and
in
the
rush
of
the
Christmas
season
and
subsequent
busy
period
the
matter
slipped
my
mind.
4.
The
taxpayer
was
under
the
impression
the
matter
was
being
handled
by
me
and
until
collections
recently
started
applying
pressure,
he
then
contacted
me.
There
is
no
justification
for
granting
the
application
in
Mr
Sproule’s
letter.
There
is
nothing
in
what
he
said
this
morning,
including
his
recent
marriage,
which
can
be
considered
as
having
any
bearing
or
any
import
on
the
filing
of
the
application
and
I
believe
that
it
would
be
doing
a
wrong
service
to
professionals
to
give
them
the
idea
that
so
long
as
they
advise
the
Board
that
there
was
some
mistake
in
their
operation
that
the
application
would
automatically
be
granted.
I
think
that
that
would
be
a
wrong
policy
to
follow.
It
is
certainly
not
the
one
which
has
been
followed
by
my
colleagues
on
this
Board
nor
in
the
Federal
Court.
So,
therefore,
I
hold
that
the
application
for
an
extension
of
time
for
the
filing
of
the
Notice
of
Appeal
for
the
1976
taxation
year
also
be
rejected.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content