Delmer
E
Taylor:—This
is
a
decision
on
a
hearing
at
which
Mr
Moses
Grad
made
application
to
the
Tax
Review
Board
under
subsection
167(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
SC
1970-71-72,
c
63,
as
amended,
for
an
Order
extending
the
time
within
which
notices
of
objection
to
income
tax
assessments
for
the
years
1974
and
1975
could
be
served
on
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue.
Section
165
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
provides
a
taxpayer
with
a
period
of
90
days
from
the
date
of
mailing
of
the
notice
of
assessment
in
which
to
serve
on
the
Minister
a
notice
of
objection
in
the
prescribed
form.
Further,
paragraph
167(5)(a)
of
the
Act
reads
as
follows:
(5)
When
order
to
be
made.
No
order
shall
be
made
under
subsection
(1)
or
(4)
(a)
unless
the
application
to
extend
the
time
for
objecting
or
appealing
is
made
within
one
year
after
the
expiration
of
the
time
otherwise
limited
by
this
Act
for
objecting
to
or
appealing
from
the
assessment
in
respect
of
which
the
application
is
made;
Subsection
167(3)
states:
(3)
How
application
made.
An
application
under
subsection
(1)
shall
be
made
by
filing
with
the
Registrar
of
the
Tax
Review
Board
or
by
sending
by
registered
mail
addressed
to
him
at
Ottawa
3
copies
of
the
application
accompanied
by
3
copies
of
a
notice
of
objection
or
notice
of
appeal,
as
the
case
may
be.
The
taxpayer
was
represented
by
his
son,
Mr
Irving
Grad,
and
although
he
presented
no
physical
evidence,
he
did
refer
to
the
application
which
had
been
filed
with
the
Board,
which
application
is
reproduced
hereunder:
August
7th,
1978
Registrar,
Tax
Review
Board
Kent
Professional
Building
381
Kent
Street
Ottawa,
Ontario
K1A
0M1
To
The
Registrar
Please
find
attached
notices
of
objections
to
reassessments
received
for
1974
and
1975.
I
am
requesting
that
the
90-day
time
limit
for
filing
an
objection
be
waived
since
the
notices
of
objections
weren’t
filed
earlier
for
the
following
reasons:
—
I
do
not
speak
English
fluently
and
I
wasn’t
notified
by
the
tax
auditors
of
the
90-day
time
limit
for
filing
a
notice
of
objection.
—
I
didn’t
engage
an
accountant
until
after
the
90-day
period
had
expired.
—
I
subsequently
contacted
Revenue
Canada
and
they
suggested
that
I
send
them
a
letter
requesting
that
they
accept
adjustments
to
the
reassessments
rather
than
file
a
formal
notice
of
objection.
—
I
sent
a
letter
dated
September
30,
1977,
requesting
the
department
to
review
the
reassessments
and
in
January
1978
they
notified
me
that
they
would
accept
any
additional
information
relating
to
the
reassessments.
—
I
reviewed
my
records
and
found
that
I
previously
hadn’t
taken
capital
cost
allowances
that
I
was
entitled
to
but
after
the
reassessments
it
would
be
to
my
benefit
to
claim
the
capital
cost
allowance.
—
I
submitted
a
letter
dated
March
31,
1978,
requesting
that
the
capital
cost
allowance
claim
be
amended.
—
Revenue
Canada
notified
me
July
24,
1978,
that
they
wouldn’t
amend
the
capital
cost
allowance
because
I
had
passed
the
90-day
time
limit
and
said
that
I
would
have
to
file
a
formal
notice
of
objection
to
the
reassessments
if
I
wanted
the
capital
cost
allowance
claim
allowed.
In
conclusion
I
didn’t
file
a
notice
of
objection
earlier
because
the
Department
notified
me
that
they
would
accept
additional
information
relating
to
the
reassessments
without
filing
a
notice
of
objection,
but
after
I
submitted
additional
information
they
notified
me
that
I
would
have
to
file
a
notice
of
objection
if
I
wanted
them
to
consider
the
additional
information.
Therefore,
I
would
appreciate
if
if
you
would
waive
the
90-day
time
limit
and
send
the
attached
notices
of
objection
to
the
Deputy
Minister
of
National
Revenue
to
be
reviewed.
Yours
truly
(Sgd)
Moses
Grad
M
Grad
Account
#GRAD
1050012
Soc
Ins
427
793
906
The
notices
of
objection
at
issue
in
this
hearing
were
dated
August
17,
1978,
and
date-stamped
as
received
by
the
Registrar
of
the
Tax
Review
Board
on
October
3,
1978.
There
was
also
made
available
to
the
Board
the
following
letter
from
Revenue
Canada:
Revenue
Canada
Taxation
September
26,
1978
Registrar
Tax
Review
Board
Our
file
381
Kent
Street
Appeals
Branch
Ottawa,
Ontario
(Miss)
C
Charbonneau
K1A
0M1
A/Supervisor
Dear
Sir:
Re:
GRAD,
M
Attached
is
an
application
for
extension
of
time
to
file
a
notice
of
objection
for
the
above-named
taxpayer
which
was
sent
to
our
Department
in
error.
(Sgd)
C
Charbonneau
per
SB
for
Director,
Appeals
and
Referrals
Division
CC/yb
Attachment
875
Heron
Road
Ottawa,
Ont
K1A
0L8
There
was
also
provided
to
the
Board,
as
forming
part
of
the
taxpayer’s
file,
a
letter
date-stamped
as
received
by
the
Director—Taxation
(presumably
of
Revenue
Canada)
at
Toronto,
Ontario
on
September
5,
1978:
Dear
Sir;
Kindly
find
enclosed
herein
the
information
you
requested,
in
addition
to
a
cheque
in
the
amount
of
$300.
Trusting
you
will
find
all
to
your
satisfaction.
M
GRAD.
It
was
the
contention
of
the
agent
for
the
appellant
that
the
notices
of
objection,
with
the
application
(letter
of
August
7,
1978
reproduced
above),
had
indeed
been
mailed
before
the
expiration
of
the
ultimate
deadline
giving
jurisdiction
to
this
Board—“one
year
after
the
expiration
of
the
time
otherwise
limited
by
this
Act
for
objecting
to
or
appealing
from
the
assessment
in
respect
of
which
the
application
is
made’’
(paragraph
167(5)(a)).
The
Board
can
appreciate
the
dilemma
described
by
the
taxpayer
in
the
application
quoted
earlier,
since
the
deadline
for
filing
his
application
was
approaching
and
he
was
still
in
the
process
of
attempting
to
settle
the
matter
with
Revenue
Canada.
Nevertheless,
there
is
no
evidence
that
the
law
dealing
with
the
making
of
the
application,
as
it
is
required
in
order
to
initiate
jurisdiction
before
this
Board,
has
been
met.
A
very
generous
calculation
of
the
time
limit
involved
would
indicate
that
the
application
should
have
been
filed
with
the
Registrar
of
the
Tax
Review
Board
no
later
than
August
21,
1978.
It
was
filed
on
October
3,
1978.
There
is
some
indication
that
it
was
prepared
before
that
date
(the
August
17,
1978
date
on
the
application,
and
the
August
17,
1978
date
on
the
notices
of
objection),
and
that
it
might
have
been
mailed
at
approximately
that
time
(the
September
5,
1978
“received’’
stamp
on
the
letter
referred
to
above,
if
that
letter
had
been
enclosed
with
the
other
two
documents).
However,
the
Board
does
not
have
physical
evidence
that
it
was
mailed
within
the
allotted
time,
and
in
a
matter
of
this
nature
(the
determination
of
jurisdiction),
the
Board
could
not
accept
as
satisfactory,
just
the
statement
of
the
agent
for
the
taxpayer
that
this
was
done.
The
application
is
dismissed.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content