Date: 20010718
Docket: 98-1781-IT-G, 98-1784-IT-G, 98-1793-IT-G,
98-1795-IT-G, 98-1796-IT-G, 98-1821-IT-G
BETWEEN:
WINDSOR MANAGEMENT LTD., 203380 ALBERTA LTD., 285863 ALBERTA
LTD., FANTASY CONSTRUCTION LTD. FANTASY HOMES LTD. and WINDSOR
MORTGAGE CORPORATION LTD.,
Appellants,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons for Judgment
McArthur J.
[1]
These reasons deal with two motions filed by the Respondent that
raise two issues: are the appeals statute-barred?[1] and does this Court have
jurisdiction to order the relief sought by the Appellants?[2] A positive answer
to either question would have the effect of quashing six appeals.
The motions arise from appeals by six related companies and those
companies, taxation years and amounts in dispute are as
follows:
1.
Windsor Management Ltd. - 1993 and 1994 taxation years - amount
of $9,236.05.
2.
203380 Alberta Ltd. - 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 taxation
years - amount of $5,528.30.
3.
285863 Alberta Ltd. - 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 taxation
years - amount of $65,166.60.
4.
Fantasy Construction Ltd. - 1991, 1992 and 1993 taxation years -
amount of $2,422.25.
5.
Fantasy Homes Ltd. - 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 taxation
years -amount of $2,732.32.
6.
Windsor Mortgage Corporation Ltd. - 1993 taxation year
- amount of $7,814.89.
[2]
The Respondent first filed a motion to dismiss the appeals on the
ground that the appeals were instituted outside of the time
prescribed in section 169 of the Income Tax Act and that
the Minister of National Revenue was statute-barred from
processing the requested adjustments. This motion was adjourned
and rescheduled several times. The Respondent then filed a
further motion to dismiss the appeals on the grounds that the
relief sought in the Notices of Appeal is relief for which this
Court does not have jurisdiction to grant.
[3]
The appeals are similar but for taxation years and amounts. A
review of the Notice of Appeal in Fantasy Homes Ltd. v. The
Queen (98-1796(IT)G) is sufficient. The five remaining
appeals are similar. The Appellants claim to have filed a Notice
of Objection on May 6, 1996 and to have received a Final
Notification of Reassessment on April 6, 1998. The Appellants
blamed their accountant for errors made in the original tax
filings and requested the Minister to take these errors into
consideration and reduce the assessments according to amended
returns prepared by new accountants some years after the
incorrect returns.
[4]
The Minister states that the amended tax returns were submitted
beyond the limitation periods and are statute-barred. The
Appellants state that a letter dated May 6, 1996[3] from Mr. John Van Leenen[4] to Revenue Canada
should be taken as a Notice of Objection for all six Appellants.
The entirety of this letter is as follows:
May 6, 1996
Revenue Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0L8
Attention:
Mr. Pierre Gravelle, Q.C.
Deputy Minister
Dear Sir:
Thank you for your kindness in responding to our letter of
February 14, 1996. While we agree that progress has been made as
a result of our new accountant Mr. Ace Cetinski, who is a
Chartered Accountant with your Mr. Arnold Lorenz, there are
still many issues that have not been resolved.
You state that your auditor, Mr. Joel Klein performed within the
guidelines established by the Department. We will provide proof
with this letter that that is not the case. He jumped to
conclusions based on the accountant's errors in reporting
without auditing the relevant documents involved. For instance, a
shareholder's loan was shown by Fantasy Homes to the
undersigned in the amount of $18,000.00. Mr. Klein failed to
confirm the accuracy of that account and to our knowledge was
never provided with a breakdown by our accountant. For more than
a year we tried to get a copy of this account and it took several
letters from our lawyer to our old accountant and many phone
calls from our new accountant to finally get a copy of this
schedule.
Upon review of this schedule, we found many errors. A loan made
by Fantasy Homes and consequently repaid by my ex-wife was
charged as income to the undersigned. That is a serious error.
Other expenses like automotive expenses and administrative
expenses were also charged to me in error. Please find herewith
copies of the relevant documents with a typed copy showing the
amounts charged to my account erroneously.
There is another large item, namely a $19,000.00
shareholder's loan shown owing by me to Windsor Mortgage
Corporation Ltd. We have never been provided a breakdown of this
account although we have asked for it numerous times. Your
Department could be of great assistance to us if they demanded
this schedule from our previous accountant and any co-operation
you can give us in this regard would be greatly appreciated.
Over many years it has been a standard policy of Revenue Canada
to accept adjustments when accountant's errors have been
made. There must be thousands of examples across Canada of
adjustments of accounting errors. For some reason that we cannot
understand, we were not permitted this privilege and therefore,
we have now turned this file over to our solicitor to proceed
with a formal legal appeal. We would be most eager to avoid the
legal cost to us and the cost it would involve to Revenue Canada
and consequently to Canadians as taxpayers if we could avoid a
legal appeal. For that reason, we were wondering if it would be
possible for you to arrange a meeting with your Edmonton
Director, our new Chartered Accountant and our Lawyer, Mr. Gary
Bigg to discuss the issues involved and see if we could come to a
final settlement. Your kind co-operation in this matter
would be greatly appreciated.
We have been reporting to Revenue Canada through various
companies from 1963. During most of that time we have used
Chartered Accounting firms and as a result of that we have had
very few difficulties. Due to the disasterous (sic) real
estate market in the Edmonton area in the past twelve years, we
had to resort to cheaper accounting services, which resulted in
poor service and improper accounting reporting. We regret such
errors on the part of our old accountant and any inconvenience it
has caused Revenue Canada. We are anxious to have these matters
settled and have now again retained a Chartered Accounting firm
to make sure that the accounting is done in accordance with the
standard accounting procedures recognized by Revenue Canada to
avoid future errors and extra work by your staff.
We would be most grateful for any further assistance that you may
be able to provide. Thank you for your consideration.
Yours respectfully,
FANTASY HOMES LTD.
"John Van Leenen"
MR. JOHN VAN LEENEN
President
[5]
The Notices of Appeal refer to a meeting between the
Appellants' representative and the Appeal Division of Revenue
Canada on June 20, 1996 when the Appellants were invited to
submit additional information. After the Appellants presented
this information on February 13, 1997 and March 6, 1997, the
Minister took the irretractable position that the appeals were
statute-barred. The appeals were commenced because of the
Minister's refusal to consider the revised tax returns and
background accounting. Eight witnesses gave evidence at the
hearing of the motions, four in support of the Respondent and
four on behalf of the Appellants.
[6]
The Appellants' accountant, A.H. Cetinski, was obviously
aware of the problem with time limits stating in the last
paragraph of his letter dated March 6, 1997[5] addressed to Revenue Canada:
Due to the extraordinary circumstances related to this group of
accounts we request that Revenue Canada waive any provisions
relating to the time limits for the adjustment of accounts and
related carry back/forward of losses and other items. It is hoped
that this matter could be dealt with at the district level and
avoid time delays in making presentations to the Tax Fairness
Committee. We feel that these major adjustments were the result
of poor professional services provided by the previous
accountants. As there are no qualification criteria for corporate
tax prepares by Revenue Canada, we feel our clients should not be
penalized by restricting movements of losses and other items as
outlined in the Tax Act.
[7]
The first motion asks the question: were the appeals instituted
within the time limits prescribed in the Act? Subsections
165(1) and 169(1) of the Act provide:
165(1) A taxpayer who objects to an
assessment under this Part may serve on the Minister a notice of
objection, in writing, setting out the reasons for the objection
and all relevant facts,
(a)
where the assessment is in respect of the taxpayer for a taxation
year and the taxpayer is an individual (other than a trust) or a
testamentary trust, on or before the later of
(i)
the day that is one year after the taxpayer's filing-due date
for the year, and
(ii)
the day that is 90 days after the day of mailing of the notice of
assessment;
and
(b)
in any other case, on or before the day that is 90 days after the
day of mailing of the notice of assessment.
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.
Under certain circumstances, an extension of time to object or
to appeal may be granted pursuant to sections 166 and 167,
respectively, up to one year after the expiration of the 90-day
period.
[8] I
accept the following facts, most of which were not contested:
(a)
The Minister issued nil assessments (which cannot be objected to
or appealed from) for the following corporations:
Fantasy Homes Ltd. for the 1991 taxation year, reassessment
dated May 13, 1996;[6] and
Windsor Management Ltd. for the 1992 taxation year,
reassessment dated April 12, 1996.[7]
(b)
The following corporations were assessed after the purported
objection dated May 6, 1996:
Fantasy Homes Ltd. for the 1991 taxation year, reassessment
dated May 13, 1996; and
285863 Alberta Ltd. for the 1991 and 1992 taxation years,
reassessment dated May 21, 1996.[8]
(c)
Notices of Confirmation were issued for Fantasy Construction Ltd.
for the 1991, 1992 and 1993 taxation years, dated March 21,
1996.[9]
The Notice of Appeal was filed on June 26, 1998. The Appellant
did not apply for an extension of time.
(d)
There is nothing in dispute and no reassessment from which to
file an objection for Windsor Mortgage Corporation Ltd. The
Appellant had already been allowed the maximum deduction for a
charitable donation and no other issue remained in dispute.
There were no reassessments or confirmations subsequent to
June 20, 1996 but for the loss carry-back for the 1993 and 1994
taxation years for Fantasy Homes Ltd. which is dated December 23,
1996.[10]
Respondent's position: statute-barred
[9]
Counsel for the Respondent submits that Mr. Van Leenen and his
representatives confused the objection procedure and appeal
procedure with procedures aimed at settlement. He stated that
pursuant to subsection 152(4) of the Act, no adjustment
can be made when the Minister is not alleging misrepresentation
or fraud, where no waiver was filed and more than three years
have elapsed since the mailing of the original notice of
assessment. The letter dated May 6, 1996 is not a Notice of
Objection.
[10] The
Respondent relies on Mr. Cetinski's letter of March 6, 1997
to support his position that the Appellants knew the appeals were
statute-barred. The Minister states that he has no discretion to
reassess the Appellants outside the normal reassessment period
and refers to Miller v. The Queen.[11]
[11] Fantasy
Homes Ltd. and 285863 Alberta Ltd. were reassessed after the
purported letter of objection of May 6, 1996. Notices of
Assessments for Fantasy Construction Ltd. for the 1991, 1992 and
1993 taxation years were dated March 21, 1996. The Notices
of Appeal were filed on June 26, 1998, well beyond the time
limits. For Windsor Management Ltd., there is nothing in dispute.
The letter of May 6, 1996 makes reference only to Fantasy Homes
Ltd. and Windsor Management Ltd.
[12] The
Respondent contends that the purported objection served two
purposes. First, he states that Mr. Van Leenen was disputing his
personal assessments for the 1991 and 1992 taxation years and
should not be treated as a blanket objection for the corporations
and the Minister did not treat it as such. Second, the Minister
is of the view that the letter was a request for adjustments or
settlement to correct alleged accounting errors.
[13] The
Respondent also contends that not only was the purported
objection not in the usual form but it also was not made in the
same form as the objections that the Appellant had made in the
past. Past objections dated May 26, 1995 refer to the account
number and clearly stated "we hereby object to the
re-assessment of our account".[12] As a result, the Minister contends
that the May 6, 1996 letter cannot be viewed as a valid notice of
objection and that it follows that the Notices of Appeal were
invalidly filed as they do not meet the requirements of
subsection 169(1) of the Act. Counsel relies on
Jones v. R.[13] and Proulx v. R.[14]
[14] The
Respondent states further that no reassessments or confirmations
were issued subsequent to the meeting on June 20, 1996 in
relation to the corporate Appellants except for the loss
carry-back applied to the 1993 and 1994 taxation years for
Fantasy Homes Ltd. dated December 23, 1996.
[15] The
Respondent also notes that there seemed to be confusion between
Mr. Van Leenen and his representatives as to who was
responsible for filing the Notices of Objection and the Notices
of Appeal. There also was confusion between an objection and an
appeal but the Minister states that Mr. Van Leenen must have had
some understanding being that he instructed his lawyer, Mr. Gary
J. Bigg to file an appeal for his personal assessments.
[16] Paragraph
(b) of the Notices of Appeal refers to a "Final
Notification of Reassessment" having been received on April
6, 1998. This document was a letter dated April 2, 1998 from Mr.
G. Graschuk of the Appeals Division of Revenue Canada to Mr.
Van Leenen.[15] The Minister states that this letter merely restated
the Minister's consistent position and should not be viewed
as a reassessment or a confirmation pursuant to subsection 165(3)
of the Act. If the Court accedes to this view then it
flows that the Notices of Appeal filed on June 26, 1998 were not
filed within the time limit prescribed by subsection 169(1).
[17] Counsel
for the Respondent referred to Pennington v.
M.N.R.[16]
which was relied on by counsel for the Appellants. This case had
subsequently been reversed by the Federal Court of Appeal in
1987.[17]
Respondent's position: jurisdiction
[18] Briefly,
the Appellants were not appealing the assessments of tax but were
asking for a review of the Minister's refusal to make certain
adjustments which is declaratory relief and the time limits had
expired to file notices of objection or notices of appeal.
Appellant's position: statute-barred
[19] Counsel
for the Appellants relies on the May 6, 1996 letter as a valid
notice of objection. He relies strongly on his submission that
the Appellants were misled by Revenue Canada into believing that
reconsideration requests were being considered and there was no
need to file Notices of Appeal.
Appellants' position: jurisdiction
[20] The
ambiguity with respect to the relief sought in the Notices of
Appeal should not prevent the Court from making a determination
accepting the accountant's amended statement. His March 6,
1997 letter wherein he requests that time limits be waived was a
precaution only. Counsel adds that he is not seeking a
declaration but is appealing the Minister's refusal to review
the objections to the reassessments.
Analysis
[21] I will
deal first with the statute-barred issue. If the Notices of
Objection and/or Notices of Appeal were not filed within the
statutory time limits set out in subsections 165(1) and 169(1) of
the Act, the appeals must be quashed. See Hughes
v. M.N.R.[18]
Notices of Objection
[22] Is the
letter of May 6, 1996 a valid notice of objection for all
Appellants? It is a request completed on letterhead of Fantasy
Homes Ltd. to the Deputy Minister of Finance that he intervene to
have the matters settled without a "formal legal
appeal". Nowhere does Mr. Van Leenen express an intention to
object to any assessment or reassessment as contemplated in
subsection 165(1). The letter does not refer to any of the
Appellants other than being on letterhead of Fantasy Homes Ltd.
It does refer to Windsor Mortgage Corporation Ltd. but only in
relation to a shareholder loan assessed to Mr. Van Leenen
personally. It would be stretching the facts too far to accept
the letter as a Notice of Objection. There are other mountains
the Appellants are unable to scale.
[23] Clearly,
the nil assessments for Fantasy Homes Ltd. for the 1991 taxation
year and for Windsor Management Ltd. for the 1992 taxation year
cannot be appealed. There was nothing to dispute. There was a nil
assessment from which there can be no appeal. See The Queen v.
Consumers Gas Company Ltd.[19] Fantasy Homes Ltd. for 1991 and 285863
Alberta Ltd. for 1991 and 1992 were assessed after May 6, 1996. A
taxpayer cannot object to a non-existent assessment. Fantasy
Construction Ltd. did not file a timely appeal pursuant to
subsection 169(1) to the notices of confirmation issued for its
1991, 1992 and 1993 taxation years. There is no reassessment for
Windsor Mortgage Corporation Ltd. to object to, The Appellants
had filed clear and distinct notices of objections in May 1995 to
previous assessments and in most instances, reassessments ensued
but no Notices of Appeal were filed within the prescribed time
limits. In no instances were requests for extension of time to
file Notices of Objection made pursuant to sections 166.1 and
166.2. The Appellants presented no evidence to refute the
relevant dates for filing Notices of Appeal.
Notices of Appeal
[24] Having
found that no timely Notices of Objection were filed, it is not
necessary to consider the Notices of Appeal requirements but some
of the difficulties are worthy of mention. To conclude that the
Notices of Appeal filed June 26, 1998 were filed within the
section 169 prescribed time, the Appellants' counsel admits
that I would have to conclude that the letter from Mr. Graschuk
dated April 6, 1998 was a "Final Notification of
Reassessment". It reiterates the problems previously
discussed with the Appellants' agents. It cannot be construed
as a Notice of Confirmation of reassessments or a reassessment.
The said letter provides as follows:
Mr. Gary J Bigg
C/o Lirenman Peterson
Suite 300, Notre Dame Place
255 17 Avenue SW
Calgary AB T2S 2T8
April 02, 1998
Dear Sir:
Re:
John J. van Leenen and his group of companies
We have reviewed the status of the alleged objections for your
client's group of companies. As discussed at our meeting of
March 13, 1998, these matters were settled largely, if not
completely, at a meeting on March 06, 1996, between
Ace Cetinski, Lou Marta, Rowena Sabbaghzadeh, and Arnold
Lorenz; the latter two individuals being from the Appeals
Division of Revenue Canada. The result was that confirmation and
reassessment notices were issued for various companies and their
returns, most of those with agreement from your client. In
addition, the files were closed at that time and no further
objections were filed for the corporations, nor were Notices of
Appeal to the Tax Court of Canada.
By letter dated February 13, 1997, Ace and Lou presented
amended T2 returns for several of the companies and their
returns. These were forwarded to Stan Sewlal of the Audit
Division for consideration as a taxpayer request. As there
were no valid objections for the companies, these amended returns
could not be considered by an Appeals officer such as
myself. We acknowledge the effort that was expended on the
creation of the amended financial statements and returns but
stress that no waivers were signed in advance to keep the subject
returns from becoming statute barred. Similarly, this department
was not earlier notified that amended returns would be filed with
the expectation of adjustments, thus requiring waivers.
At our meeting of March 13, 1998 you directed my attention to
your client's letter of May 06, 1996. That letter was written
on the letterhead of Fantasy Homes Limited and was sent directly
to the then Deputy Minister, Pierre Gravelle QC. Your client
apparently believes that the references therein to possible
'legal appeals' are tantamount to the filing of valid
objections or appeals on behalf of all of his companies. The
following address that concern:
· The
letter was directed to the Deputy Minister, rather than to the
Chief of Appeals of a District Office or Taxation Center, as
stated in subsection 165(2) of the Income Tax Act and
on the T400A Notice of Objection form, assuming that objections
were being filed by way of this letter.
· The
letter was not directed to the Tax Court of Canada, which would
have been required if the letter were intended as a Notice of
Appeal,.
· The
letter does not indicate that there was an intention to file
either an objection or appeal.
· If
the letter was intended to indicate an intention to object or
appeal, it neither stated the relevant taxpayer(s) nor the
relevant taxation years.
· If
the letter was intended to indicate an intention to object or
appeal, it failed to give any reasons for opposition to the
reassessment nor state any relevant facts.
· The
letter was sent to Deputy Minister Pierre Gravelle, not to
Minister Jane Stewart, in case your client is suggesting
that the letter was sent to the Minister as one
might be lead to think from reading subsections 165(1) or
(3) of the Act.
·
Repeated readings of that letter still do not lead us to believe
that letter should be construed as a notice of objection nor
appeal; it continues to read as a request for explanations of
certain audit adjustments; a complaint letter as it were.
Your client is also concerned about a comment on the statement
of account for one or more of his companies. The computer
generated document indicated that the particular return was under
objection. While this comment was generated, it was not a
handwritten comment nor was it manually typed. That comment was
automatically created by a pre-existing stall code; the only
reason it continued to show on the statement was because of
clerical oversight. We place no reliance on that document,
especially since it stands in contrast to correspondence that was
sent by this department about the same time but which was created
by hand rather than generated by code.
I also take this opportunity to reiterate our position that an
authorized representative is able to make decisions on behalf of
an objector or Appellant, including settling a file,
notwithstanding that the representative may not have discussed
the settlement specifically with his client. This department is
not bound to discuss or correspond with a taxpayer where a
representative has been authorized to act on the taxpayer's
behalf.
I trust this is sufficient and I pray that there is no need
for further discussion on the corporate returns matters. To
reiterate, I have never been involved with the corporate returns
and, for all intents and purposes, am unable to discuss them
beyond the information I relate here.
My involvement with the personal returns of your client ceased
some 16 months ago. No copy of this letter will be sent by this
department to your client. I regret our decision could not be
more favorable.
As a side note, you may be aware that your client has
continued to write to persons at this Tax Services Office on his
own, even subsequent to our meeting of March 13. As we are not
prepared to revisit the matter of the alleged objections or
appeals of the corporate returns ad infinitum, we would
appreciate if you could speak to your client in this regard. As
you and Ace are the authorized representatives of
Mr. van Leenen and his companies, we would appreciate
and prefer that communications between this department and your
client's interests were limited to you, Ace, and the
department only. We believe this would reduce the duplication of
efforts for all involved and result in more efficient
correspondence and better client service.
Yours sincerely,
"G. Graschuk"
[25] The
evidence reveals a serious confusion between Mr. Van Leenen and
his several representatives. There were too many parties
involved. Mr. Van Leenen obviously did not relinquish control of
the process and seemed determined to negotiate or force a
settlement without litigation. Unfortunately, he neglected the
requirements in sections 165 and 169 of the Act. While his
lawyers and accountants were in communication with Revenue
Canada, Mr. Van Leenen was proceeding with his own agenda. No one
was sure who was in charge of the required appeal procedures. I
believe Mr. Van Leenen was convinced that the appeal procedures
under sections 165 and 169 were not necessary. He anticipated a
less formal resolution.
[26] The
evidence is not sufficient to conclude that Mr. Van Leenen was
misled by Revenue Canada. He asked for a meeting and they met. I
believe Revenue Canada officers did not consider or recognize a
statute-barred situation until Mr. Stan Sewlal, Tax
Avoidance Officer of Revenue Canada, received
Mr. Cetinski's accounting information in March 1997. I
cannot change the clear wording of subsections 165(1) or 169(1)
nor remedy the Appellants' failure to meet statutory
deadlines. I conclude the appeals are statute-barred. There is no
need to deal with the jurisdiction issue. The motion dated
October 21, 1998 is allowed and all purported appeals are
quashed. The motions having been heard together, the Respondent
is entitled to only one set of costs.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 18th day of July, 2001.
"C.H. McArthur"
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE
NO.:
98-1781(IT)G, 98-1784(IT)G, 98-1793(IT)G, 98-1795(IT)G,
98-1796(IT)G, 98-1821(IT)G
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
Windsor Management Ltd., 203380 Alberta Ltd., 285863 Alberta
Ltd., Fantasy Construction Ltd., Fantasy Homes Ltd., and Windsor
Mortgage Corporation Ltd. and Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF
HEARING:
Edmonton, Alberta
DATE OF
HEARING:
January 22, 23 and 24, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The
Honourable Judge C.H. McArthur
DATE OF
JUDGMENT:
July 18, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for the Appellant: Brock Ian Dagenais
Counsel for the
Respondent:
John O'Callaghan
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the
Appellant:
Name:
Brock Ian Dagenais
Firm:
For the
Respondent:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
98-1781(IT)G
BETWEEN:
WINDSOR MANAGEMENT LTD.,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Motions heard on common evidence with the
motions in 203380 Alberta Ltd. (98-1784(IT)G), 285863
Alberta Ltd. (98-1793(IT)G), Fantasy Construction Ltd.,
(98-1795(IT)G), Fantasy Homes Ltd. (98-1796(IT)G) and
Windsor Mortgage Corporation Ltd.
(98-1821(IT)G), on
January 22, 23 and 24, 2001, at Edmonton,
Alberta, by
the Honourable Judge C.H. McArthur
Appearances
Counsel for the
Appellant:
Brock Ian Dagenais
Counsel for the
Respondent:
John O'Callaghan
JUDGMENT
UPON
motions by counsel for the Respondent for Orders dismissing the
appeals from assessments of tax made under the Income Tax
Act for the taxation years ending March 31, 1993 and
1994;
AND
UPON reading the pleadings, affidavits and written submissions,
filed;
AND
UPON hearing counsel for the parties;
It is
ordered that the motions are granted, with costs, and the
purported appeals from assessments of tax made under the
Act for the taxation years ending March 31, 1993 and 1994
are quashed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 18th day of July, 2001.
J.T.C.C.
Email this Content