Mahoney,
J:—This
is
an
appeal
from
“net
worth”
assessments
for
the
years
1965
to
1970
inclusive
made
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
as
a
result
of
the
plaintiff’s
failure
to
file
income
tax
returns
for
the
years
1965
through
1968
and
his
filing
of
incomplete
returns
for
1969
and
1970.
The
hearing
of
this
appeal
was
followed
by
the
hearing
of
an
appeal
by
the
plaintiff’s
son,
Albert
Winfred
Werry,
arising
out
of
similar
circumstances.
The
plaintiff
was
duly
sworn
and
testified
under
oath
at
this
hearing.
During
the
course
of
his
testimony
on
behalf
of
his
son
the
following
day,
again
after
being
sworn,
the
plaintiff
informed
the
Court
that
he
did
not
regard
the
oath
as
binding
on
his
conscience.
The
plaintiff
clearly
dominates
those
members
of
his
family
who
testified.
Their
evidence
is
no
more
to
be
believed
than
his.
In
reserving
my
decision,
I
indicated
that
I
was
concerned
about
only
one
item,
an
item
that
also
concerned
the
learned
Chairman
of
the
Tax
Review
Board.
That
is
the
inclusion
in
the
plaintiff’s
assets
of
mortgage
receivable
from
Allan
J
Werry,
another
son.
It
appears
that
this
mortgage
was
assigned
by
the
plaintiff
to
his
wife,
Alberta
Sophia
Werry,
in
1963.
The
deed
of
assignment
was
registered
in
the
Registry
for
the
West
Riding
of
Durham
County,
Ontario
on
October
3,
1963.
The
mortgage
appears
to
have
been
made
in
1959
and
the
principal
balance
at
the
time
of
assignment
was
$20,000.
This
was
reduced
to
$18,000
in
1964,
to
$14,000
in
1965,
to
$12,000
in
1967
and
to
$10,000
in
1970.
Mrs
Werry
is
said
to
have
been
paid
$1,200
interest
in
1964,
$960
in
1965,
$980
in
1966,
$800
in
1967,
$840
in
1968
and
$960
in
1969.
The
1970
interest
payment
was
not
received
until
1971.
The
foregoing
information
as
to
interest
is
derived
from
documents
purporting
to
be
receipts
given
by
Mrs
Werry
to
Allan
J
Werry.
Two
cancelled
cheques
were
produced.
The
first,
dated
October
6,
1965
for
$340,
bears
the
notation:
Interest
re
Farm
800.00
cash
340.00
cheque
$1,140.00
The
second,
bearing
the
notation
“Interest
re
Mortgage
1966”,
dated
October
1,
1966,
is
for
$840.
It
will
be
noted
that
neither
amount
coincides
with
the
amount
shown
on
the
receipts
for
those
years.
The
fact
remains
that
the
deed
is
genuine
and
there
is,
in
the
cheques,
which
are
also
genuine,
some
corroboration
of
the
assertion
that
interest
was
in
fact
paid
although
they
are
not
particularly
helpful
in
confirming
the
amounts.
The
mortgage
itself
is
not
in
evidence
so
I
do
not
have
the
interest
rate
fixed
by
it.
The
amounts
said
to
have
been
paid
vary
from
6%
to
8%
of
the
amounts
said
to
have
been
outstanding
in
the
years
in
question.
I
think
that
6%
would
have
been
a
reasonable
rate
of
interest
on
a
mortgage
in
1959
particularly
in
view
of
the
fact
that
the
transaction
was
between
father
and
son.
The
1966
cheque
represents
a
payment
of
the
6%
of
the
amount
outstanding
that
year.
In
view
of
the
evidence
before
me
as
to
Mrs
Werry’s
cash
resources
available
for
numerous
transactions,
I
cannot
assume
that
the
interest
she
received
was
used
to
defray
any
of
the
family’s
current
household
and
personal
expenses.
I
accordingly
direct
that
the
assessments
be
referred
back
to
the
Minister
for
reconsideration
and
reassessment
on
the
basis
that
the
said
mortgage
was
in
fact
an
asset
of
Mrs
Werry
rather
than
the
plaintiff,
that
she
received
interest
of
$1,080
in
1965,
$840
in
each
of
1966
and
1967
and
$720
in
each
of
1968
and
1969
and
that
the
1970
payment
was
not
received
until
1971.
The
appeal
is
otherwise
dismissed.
The
defendant
is
entitled
to
her
costs
in
full
notwithstanding
the
partial
success
of
the
appeal.
Email this Content