Date:
20060222
Docket:
A-685-04
Citation: 2006
FCA 83
CORAM: RICHARD
C.J.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
SEXTON
J.A.
BETWEEN:
MARK W.
BORMANN
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Ottawa,
Ontario,
on February 21, 2006.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on February
22, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SEXTON
J.A.
CONCURRED
IN BY: RICHARD
C.J.
LÉTOURNEAU
J.A.
Date: 20060222
Docket:
A-685-04
Citation: 2006
FCA 83
CORAM: RICHARD
C.J.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
SEXTON
J.A.
BETWEEN:
MARK W.
BORMANN
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY
THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SEXTON J.A.
[1]
The
appellant appeals from a decision of the Tax Court, which quashed his appeals
from assessments for the 1992 to 1998, and the 2001 and 2002 taxation years (Docket:
2004-1150(IT)G).
[2]
The
appellant did not file valid Notices of Objection to the respective Notices of
Assessment for the 1992 to 1998 tax years nor did he apply to the Minister for
an extension of time for serving Notices of Objection. The relevant sections
of the Income Tax Act are:
|
166.1.
(1) Where no notice of objection to an assessment has been served under
section 165, nor any request under subsection 245(6) made, within the time
limited by those provisions for doing so, the taxpayer may apply to the
Minister to extend the time for serving the notice of objection or making the
request.
169.
(1) Where a taxpayer has served notice of objection to an assessment under
section 165, the taxpayer may appeal to the Tax Court of Canada to have the
assessment vacated or varied after either
(a) the
Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessed, or
(b) 90 days
have elapsed after service of the notice of objection and the Minister has
not notified the taxpayer that the Minister has vacated or confirmed the
assessment or reassessed,
but
no appeal under this section may be instituted after the expiration of 90
days from the day notice has been mailed to the taxpayer under section 165
that the Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessed.
|
166.1.
(1) Le contribuable qui n'a pas signifié d'avis d'opposition à une cotisation
en application de l'article 165 ni présenté de requête en application du
paragraphe 245(6) dans le délai imparti peut demander au ministre de proroger
le délai pour signifier l'avis ou présenter la requête.
169.
(1) Lorsqu'un contribuable a signifié un avis d'opposition à une cotisation,
prévu à l'article 165, il peut interjeter appel auprès de la Cour canadienne
de l'impôt pour faire annuler ou modifier la cotisation:
a) après que
le ministre a ratifié la cotisation ou procédé à une nouvelle cotisation;
b) après
l'expiration des 90 jours qui suivent la signification de l'avis d'opposition
sans que le ministre ait notifié au contribuable le fait qu'il a annulé ou
ratifié la cotisation ou procédé à une nouvelle cotisation;
toutefois,
nul appel prévu au présent article ne peut être interjeté après l'expiration
des 90 jours qui suivent la date où avis a été expédié par la poste au
contribuable, en vertu de l'article 165, portant que le ministre a ratifié la
cotisation ou procédé à une nouvelle cotisation.
|
[3]
Section
169(1) of the Income Tax Act obliges a taxpayer to serve Notice of
Objection in order to appeal an assessment. In other words, service of a
Notice is a condition precedent to the institution of an appeal.
[4]
As
mentioned, the appellant did not serve a Notice of Objection nor is there
evidence that the appellant made an application to the Ministry to extend the
time to file a Notice of Objection.
[5]
Once
it is clear that no application for an extension of time was made, the law is
clear that there is no jurisdiction in the Tax Court to further extend the time
for equitable reasons.
Minuteman Press of Canada
Company Limited v. M.N.R.,
88 D.T.C. 6278, (F.C.A.).
[6]
As
a result, there is no basis upon which it can be said that the Tax Court Judge
erred in quashing the appellant’s appeals for the 1992 to 1998 taxation years.
[7]
During
the 2001 and 2002 tax year, there was no federal tax, interest or penalty
assessed for those years against the appellant. As such, the assessments for
the 2001 and 2002 tax years were nil assessments.
[8]
The
jurisprudence is clear that a tax payer can neither object to nor appeal from a
nil assessment.
The Queen v. Consumers’ Gas Co.,
87 D.T.C. 5008 (F.C.A.)
The Queen v. Bowater Mersey Paper Co.
Ltd., 87 D.T.C. 5382 (F.C.A.)
[9]
There
is thus no basis for disturbing the findings of the Tax Court that the
appeals for the 2001 and 2002 years should be quashed.
[10]
The
appeal should be dismissed without costs.
“J.
Edgar Sexton”
“I
agree
J. Richard C.J.”.
“I agree
Gilles Létourneau J.A.”.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-685-04
APPEAL FROM
AN ORDER OF THE TAX COURT DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 2004
STYLE OF CAUSE: Mark
W. Bormann v. Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: February 21, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: SEXTON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: RICHARD C.J.
LETOURNEAU J.A.
DATED: February 22, 2006
APPEARANCES:
|
Mr. Mark W. Bormann
|
FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
Mr. Steven
Leckie
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
Self-represented
Renfrew, Ontario
|
FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
John H. Sims,
Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content