Date:
20070611
Docket: A-181-06
Citation:
2007 FCA 226
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
SEXTON
J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
SYSTEMATIX
TECHNOLOGY CONSULTANTS INC.
Appellant
and
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Edmonton,
Alberta, on June 11, 2007.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Edmonton, Alberta, on June 11, 2007.
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SEXTON J.A.
DÈCARY
J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A.
Date:
20070611
Docket: A-181-06
Citation: 2007
FCA 226
CORAM: DÉCARY
J.A.
SEXTON
J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A.
BETWEEN:
SYSTEMATIX
TECHNOLOGY CONSULTANTS INC.
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY
THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT
(Delivered
from the Bench at Edmonton, Alberta, on June 11, 2007)
SEXTON J.A.
[1]
The
Appellant paid GST to a number of suppliers. Unfortunately, for various
reasons, those suppliers did not have valid GST registration numbers. Consequently
the Respondent disallowed the Appellant’s claim for input tax credits. The
Appellant appealed to the Tax Court which dismissed the appeal.
[2]
The
Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 c. E-15 provides as follows:
|
169(4) A registrant may not claim an input tax credit for
a reporting period unless, before filing the return in which the credit is
claimed,
(a) the registrant
has obtained sufficient evidence in such form containing such information as
will enable the amount of the input tax credit to be determined, including
any such information as may be prescribed;
|
169(4) L’inscrit peut demander un crédit de
taxe sur les intrants pour une période de déclaration si, avant de produire
la déclaration à cette fin :
a) il obtient les renseignements suffisants
pour établir le montant du crédit, y compris les renseignements visés par
règlement;
|
[3] Section 3 of the Input Tax Credit
Information Regulations provides:
|
3. For the purposes of paragraph 169(4)(a) of the
Act, the following information is prescribed information:
(b) where the total
amount paid or payable shown on the supporting documentation in respect of
the supply or, if the supporting documentation is in respect of more than one
supply, the supplies, is $30 or more and less than $150,
(i) the name of the supplier
or the intermediary in respect of the supply, or the name under which the
supplier or the intermediary does business, and the registration number
assigned under subsection 241(1) of the Act to the supplier or the
intermediary, as the case may be,
(ii) the information set out
in subparagraphs (a)(ii) to (iv),
(c) where the total
amount paid or payable shown on the supporting documentation in respect of
the supply or, if the supporting documentation is in respect of more than one
supply, the supplies, is $150 or more,
(i) the information
set out in paragraphs (a) and (b),
|
3. Les renseignements visés à l'alinéa 169(4)a)
de la Loi, sont les suivants :
b) lorsque le montant total payé ou payable,
selon la pièce justificative, à l'égard d'une ou de plusieurs fournitures est
de 30 $ ou plus et de moins de 150 $ :
(i) le nom ou le
nom commercial du fournisseur ou de l'intermédiaire et le numéro
d'inscription attribué, conformément au paragraphe 241(1) de la Loi, au
fournisseur ou à l'intermédiaire, selon le cas,
(ii) les
renseignements visés aux sous-alinéas a)(ii) à (iv),
c) lorsque le montant total payé ou payable,
selon la pièce justificative, à l'égard d'une ou de plusieurs fournitures est
de 150 $ ou plus :
(i) les
renseignements visés aux alinéas a) et b),
|
[4] We are of the view that the
legislation is mandatory in that it requires persons who have paid GST to
suppliers to have valid GST registration numbers from those suppliers when
claiming input tax credits.
[5] We agree with the comments of
Bowie J. in the case of Key Property Management Corp. v. R.
[2004] G.S.T.C. 32 (T.C.C.) where he stated:
“The whole purpose of paragraph 169(4)(a) and the Regulations
is to protect the consolidated revenue fund against both fraudulent and
innocent incursions. They cannot succeed in that purpose unless they are
considered to be mandatory requirements and strictly enforced. The result
of viewing them as merely directory would not simply be inconvenient, it would
be a serious breach of the integrity of the statutory scheme [emphasis added].
[6] We
also agree with the comments of Campbell J. in Davis v. R. [2004]
G.S.T.C. 134 (TCC):
“Because of the very specific way in which these provisions
are worded, I do not believe they can be sidestepped. They are clearly
mandatory and the Appellant has simply not met the technical requirements
which the Act and the Regulations place upon him as a member of a
self-assessing system [emphasis added].
[7] Despite the able submissions of
Mr. Beck, acting for the Appellant, we can find no error on the part of the Tax
Court Judge and the appeal will therefore be dismissed with costs.
“J.
Edgar Sexton”
__________________________
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-181-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: Systematix Technology
Consultants
Inc. v.
Her
Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton,
Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: June 11, 2007
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DÉCARY, SEXTON, PELLETIER, JJ.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: SEXTON J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
Mr. Gordon Beck
(780) 969-3500
|
FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
Ms. Margaret
Irving
(780) 495 3491
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
MacPherson Leslie
& Tyerman
2105-10088 102 Avenue
Edmonton, AB T5J 2Z1
|
FOR THE
APPELLANT
|
|
Department of
Justice Canada
211-10199 101 Street
Edmonton, AB T5J 3Y4
|
FOR THE
RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content