A
W
Prociuk
(orally:
April
7,
1976):—The
appellant
Edward
Sliwa
appeals
from
the
respondent’s
reassessment
for
the
taxation
years
1968,
1969,
1970
and
1971.
The
reassessment
was
performed
on
a
net
worth
basis
pursuant
to
subsection
46(4)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
as
it
applied
in
those
years.
It
appeared
from
counsel’s
opening
statement
at
the
hearing
that
the
sole
issue
in
this
appeal
is
a
certain
trading
account
with
a
Mr
Ray
Nelson,
with
whom
the
appellant
had
dealings
in
the
years
1970,
1971
and
1972.
The
appellant’s
argument
was
that,
at
the
end
of
December
1971,
Mr
Nelson’s
account
was
doubtful
and
therefore
ought
not
to
have
been
included
in
the
reassessment
of
his
income
for
that
year.
The
appellant
testified
on
his
own
behalf.
I
am
not
going
to
recite
the
evidence
as
I
have
it
written
down
here
and
as
it
has
been
recorded,
except
to
say
that
I
found
it
very
unsatisfactory
and,
indeed,
unconvincing
as
evidence
that
the
account
was
a
doubtful
account
as
of
December
31,
1971.
Indeed,
Exhibits
R-4,
R-5
and
R-6,
which
were
filed
by
counsel
for
the
respondent,
clearly
indicate
that,
as
late
as
June
27,
1972
the
appellant
was
dealing
with
his
customer,
Ray
Nelson,
on
a
charge
basis
and
was
still
receiving
payments
from
him
at
that
time.
I
think
I
should
point
out
to
the
appellant
that,
since
he
has
challenged
the
net
worth
statement
of
the
respondent,
the
onus
is
clearly
on
him
(and
the
cases
in
support
of
that
are
legion)
to
establish,
by
at
least
a
preponderance
of
evidence,
that
the
statement
prepared
by
the
respondent
or
the
respondent’s
agents
is
incorrect
and
that
he
has
not
taken
into
account
certain
debts
that
were
outstanding,
or
certain
debts
that
ought
to
have
been
considered
doubtful
at
that
time.
This
onus
has
not
been
met,
the
evidence
in
this
regard
is
totally
lacking,
and
the
Board
has
no
alternative
but
to
dismiss
the
appeal.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content