Delmer
E
Taylor
(orally:
March
28,
1977):—These
are
the
appeals
of
Maria
Paletta
and
Antonio
Paletta
in
connection
with
the
1972
taxation
year.
The
merits
of
the
cases
have
not
been
brought
before
the
Board,
but
a
motion
has
been
made
by
counsel
for
the
respondent
that
these
matters
do
not
fall
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Tax
Review
Board,
as
a
result
of
non-compliance
with
the
provisions
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
dealing
with
appeals
against
such
assessments.
The
Board
is
therefore
only
dealing
with
that
issue.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
had
notified
the
agent
for
the
appellants
on
October
8,
1976
of
the
position
of
the
Minister
and
in
the
same
letter
counsel
did
suggest
that,
since
there
were
provisions
under
the
Income
Tax
Act
for
applications
to
be
made
to
the
Tax
Review
Board
under
section
167
for
an
extension
of
time,
that
course
might
be
considered
by
the
appellants.
No
such
application
for
any
extension
of
time
has
been
received,
and
the
Board
therefore
is
faced
with
dealing
with
the
question
on
the
basis
of
the
time
frame
involved
in
the
reassessment
from
the
Minister
and
the
appeals
to
the
Tax
Review
Board.
One
significant
date
agreed
to
by
the
appellants
and
the
respondent
with
regard
to
the
documentation
from
the
Minister
is
June
11,
1976.
The
point
at
issue
between
them
is
whether
or
not
that
is
the
effective
date,
in
other
words,
whether
the
Minister
s
responsibilities
were
exercised
on
that
date
or
a
later
date
when
the
said
documentation
might
have
been
mailed.
Affidavits
have
been
filed
with
the
Board
by
counsel
for
the
respondent
pointing
out
that
on
that
date,
June
11,
1976,
the
necessary
documentation
from
the
Minister
was
mailed
to
the
appellants.
On
September
13,
1976
the
Tax
Review
Board
indicated
receipt
of
the
appeals
from
the
appellants.
The
agent
for
the
appellants
has
indicated
that
these
appeals
to
the
Tax
Review
Board
were
mailed
on
September
10,
1976,
and
in
fact
the
postal
records
of
the
Tax
Review
Board
tend
to
support
that
position.
The
position
of
the
Minister
is
that
there
is
a
period
in
excess
of
90
days
between
the
date
of
action
by
the
Minister
and
the
date
of
action
by
the
appellants.
The
agent
for
the
appellants
suggested
to
the
Board
that
the
90-day
limitation
should
be
read
as
meaning
‘three
months’’.
The
Board
does
not
accept
this
meaning.
Counsel
for
the
Minister
has
also
raised
a
difference
in
terminology
in
the
Act
with
respect
to
the
Minister
s
responsibilities
of
mailing
his
notice,
and
the
appellant’s
responsibility
in
connection
with
instituting
an
appeal.
Counsel
made
the
point
that
“instituted’’
should
be
considered
as
meaning
“filed
with’’
or
“received
by”
the
Tax
Review
Board.
The
Board
does
not
agree
with
counsel
on
that
point.
The
appeals,
in
so
far
as
the
Board
is
concerned,
are
considered
as
having
been
instituted
on
September
10,
1976,
which
is
the
date
they
were
mailed
to
the
Tax
Review
Board.
However,
even
allowing
for
that
situation
which
provides
to
the
appellant
the
benefit
of
any
doubt,
the
minimum
time
that
the
Board
can
calculate
by
reference
to
earlier
cases
interpreting
the
legislation
on
this
point
is
that
91
days
passed
between
June
11
and
September
10,
1976.
Therefore,
the
Board
has
no
jurisdiction
in
these
appeals
at
this
time
and
the
motion
of
the
Minister
is
granted.
Motion
granted.
Email this Content