Delmer
E
Taylor:—This
is
the
decision
in
the
matter
of
the
application
of
Domenic
Mirotta
to
the
Tax
Review
Board
for
an
order,
pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
subsection
167(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
SC
1970-71-72,
c
63,
as
amended,
to
extend
the
time
within
which
a
notice
of
objection
to
an
income
tax
assessment
for
the
year
1974
could
be
served
on
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue:
Section
165
of
the
Act
provides
a
taxpayer
with
a
period
of
90
days
from
the
date
of
mailing
of
the
notice
of
assessment
in
which
to
serve
on
the
Minister
a
notice
of
objection
in
the
prescribed
form.
At
the
hearing,
the
taxpayer
represented
himself.
The
notice
of
objection
which
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
was
not
prepared
to
accept
without
an
order
from
the
Board
was
dated
January
18,
1978
and
related
to
an
assessment
dated
March
1,
1977.
The
specific
matter
at
issue
was
a
penalty
of
$805.72
imposed
by
the
Minister
under
subsection
163(2)
of
the
Act,
not
the
income
tax
assessment
itself.
The
reason
advanced
by
Mr
Mirotta
for
the
delay
was
the
difficulty
his
new
accountant
(Bryon
H
Bates
of
Frank
J
Jaglowitz,
chartered
accountant,
Cambridge,
Ontario)
had
experienced
in
obtaining
information
from
the
former
accountants
(MacGillivray
&
Co,
chartered
accountants,
Port
Colborne,
Ontario)
in
order
to
file
the
objection.
Mr
Mirotta’s
application
to
the
Tax
Review
Board
reads
as
follows:
APPLICATION
TO
REVIEW
BOARD
FOR
THE
EXTENSION
FOR
FILING
NOTICE
OF
OBJECTION
Domenic
Mirotta
—
SIN
436-251-185
The
notice
of
objection
was
not
filed
for
the
above
taxpayer
within
the
prescribed
90
day
period
for
the
following
reasons:
1.
We
became
accountants
for
Mr
Mirotta
on
October
21st,
1976,
(I
have
enclosed
a
letter
to
the
previous
accountants
on
that
day
which
is
marked
Exhibit
‘A’).*
At
this
time,
we
were
not
aware
that
Mr
Mirotta
was
having
some
problems
with
his
1974/1975
personal
income
tax
returns.
2.
Mr
Mirotta
received
notices
of
reassessment
for
1974
and
1975,
dated
March
1st,
1977
and
brought
them
to
my
office
for
discussion.
On
April
1st,
1977
I
sent
a
letter
to
the
previous
accountant
requesting
information
regarding
the
information
and
correspondence
that
he
had
had
with
the
local
tax
department
of
National
Revenue
regarding
the
assessments
(copy
of
letter
enclosed
and
marked
Exhibit
‘B’).*
3.
I
did
not
hear
from
the
previous
accountants
and
on
May
19th,
1977
I
wrote
a
subsequent
letter
requesting
information
so
that
I
could:
have
something
to
file
the
required
notice
of
objection
(copy
enclosed
and
marked
Exhibit
‘C’).*
4.
After
numerous
telephone
calls
to
the
previous
accountants
which
I
received
no
information
from,
I
finally
suggested
that
Mr
Mirotta
try
to
contact
him
directly
to
attempt
to
obtain
the
information
required
to
file
the
notice
of
objection.
5.
To
date,
we
have
still
not
received
satisfaction
from
the
previous
accountants
but
we
have
obtained
a
letter
written
from
him
to
the
tax
department
regarding
the
notice
of
assessment
indicating
that
the
error
was
an
oversight
on
the
part
of
the
accountants
and
not
the
taxpayer.
It
is
therefore,
felt
that
an
extension
of
time
is
applicable
in
this
case
for
filing
the
notice
of
objection
and
your
consideration
would
be
appreciated
at
this
time.
Yours
very
truly,
(Sgd)
B
H
Bates
BRYON
H
BATES
(Sgd)
Domenic
Mirotta
BHB/sl
DOMENIC
MIROTTA
I
make
reference
to
a
recent
decision
of
this
Board,
James
W
Elliott
and
MNR,
[1978]
CTC
2919
an
application
similar
in
nature
to
this
one.
The
comments
therein
hold
for
this
matter
to
the
degree
that
the
Board
finds
no
merit
in
the
explanation
provided
by
Mr
Bates
for
the
delay.
The
notice
of
objection
might
have
been
filed
in
any
event
to
protect
the
rights
of
the
taxpayer.
I
would
dismiss
this
application
but
for
the
fact
that
it
deals
with
the
imposition
of
a
penalty
under
section
163
of
the
Act.
The
taxpayer
therefore
will
be
afforded
an
opportunity
to
present
his
case.
The
application
is
allowed.
Application
allowed.
Email this Content