McArthur T.C.J.:
1 This appeal, under the informal procedures, concerns the Appellant's 1992 taxation year.
2 The issue is whether the Appellant is liable for a late filing penalty of $80.27 and interest which amounted to $110.45.
3 The Appellant presented that as a result of their documents being disrupted by a basement flood her return was filed late. She was unable to respond to a reassessment because she was out of the country.
4 The Appellant's 1992 tax return was required to be filed April 30, 1993 and was filed February 7, 1994.
Analysis
5 The Respondent referred to my decision in Housser v. R, [1994] 2 C.T.C. 2233 (T.C.C.)wherein I stated the following:
This Court derives its powers from enabling statutes and is not a Court of equity. The Tax Court of Canada does not have the jurisdiction to substitute its own opinion for that of the Minister in respect of the Minister's finding pursuant to subsection 220(3.1).
The Court was referred to the case of Floyd Estate v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 2 C.T.C. 322, 93 DTC. 5499. This was an application under the Federal Court Act for judicial review. The Court stated at page 324 (D.T.C. 550):
At the outset, I should point out that it is not for the Court to decide whether the interest otherwise payable by the taxpayer ought to be waived or cancelled. It is within the discretion of the Minister. The function of the Court in this judicial review, as I understand it, is to determine whether or not the minister failed to observe procedural fairness or erred in law in making his decision, as outlined under subsection 18.1(4) of the Federal Court Act.
The Court refused to analyze the substantive question of whether or not the decision was fair to the taxpayer. This Court will not second guess the Minister's decision. The decision, on the merits of the appellant's application under subsection 220(3.1) is at the discretion of the Minister.
6 I am still of the same opinion as it relates to the present case. While I may have concluded differently, there was no evidence that the Minister failed to observe procedural fairness or erred in law in making her decision.
7 For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.
Email this Content