Rowe D.J.T.C.:
1 This is an application for a time extension for filing a Notice of Appeal from a Notice of Confirmation dated November 4th, 1996 and there was also a Notice of Reassessment, in respect of the Appellant's 1993 taxation year, of the same date. The reason for the application as set out in paragraph 1 was as follows: The Applicant had a bona fide intention to appeal to the Court and would have done so within the time period prescribed by the Act had he been aware of the proper appeal procedure.
2 The evidence before me establishes that the Appellant had-unfortunately-obtained advice from what appears to be a tax preparer and certain Notices of Objection had been filed, but he was informed that there was no further action that could be taken. He wrote a letter to the appeals officer at Revenue Canada on December 4th, 1996, referring to the tax year 1992 and complaining that in his view it was not a fair judgment and that the account should not, in his opinion, be “closed”.
3 It is apparent that the bona fide intention to appeal can, in order to make any sense, refer only to the appeal procedures provided for pursuant to section 169(1) of the Income Tax Act. [R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.)] The phraseology in subparagraph 167(5) indicates that the bona fide intention to appeal must be exhibited with reference to the application pertaining to the expiration of the time limited by section 169 for appealing.
4 Counsel referred to a decision of Judge McArthur of the Tax Court of Canada in Seater v. R. (1996), [1997] 1 C.T.C. 2204 (T.C.C.), in which Judge McArthur found under those facts that there was a bona fide intention to appeal in that the Applicant there had forwarded reassessments to some tax preparers and advisors and subsequent to the Notice of Confirmation, or in any event the Judge found that his instructions were “to do what you have to do to make the problem go away”.
5 Since that particular decision there has been the decision of Cameron v. R.[reported[1997] 2 C.T.C. 3070 (T.C.C.)], Doc. APP-475-96-IT, judgment of Judge Bowie, and which in that particular instance he found that the Applicant did not meet the criteria set down by parliament in the appropriate subsection of the Act because there was no suggestion that she was unable to act or to instruct another to act for her, and in any event was not aware of the ability to do the Objection until the issuance of a judgment from the Supreme Court of Canada.
6 In my view, there has to be some evidence upon which the Court can find, directly or by reasonable inference, that an applicant had a bona fide intention to appeal and that the appeal can be seen as being an appeal to a court that would have the capacity or the power to instruct the Minister of National Revenue to revise the assessment. Believing that one has an appeal to the Member of Parliament or an appeal by way of letter to an employee of Revenue Canada, is not the kind of intention which is required. The language of the legislation, if parliament meant it to be broader, could have been made more flexible.
7 However, the only way that I am able to read it is the way that I have expressed in these reasons, and as a consequence, the Application is hereby dismissed.
Email this Content