Docket: 2012-624(IT)I
BETWEEN:
AMEIR AMEIR,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Motion
heard on June 7, 2012, at Edmonton, Alberta
Before: The Honourable
Justice Wyman W. Webb
Appearances:
|
For the Appellant:
|
The
Appellant Himself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Paige Atkinson
|
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
The Respondent’s Motion to quash the
Appellant’s appeals under the Income Tax Act (the “ITA”) in
relation to the reassessments issued for his 2006 and 2007 taxation years is
dismissed, without costs. The Respondent shall have until August 24, 2012
to file a Reply in relation to these appeals under the ITA.
Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 22nd day of June 2012.
“Wyman W. Webb”
Docket: 2012-625(GST)I
BETWEEN:
AMEIR AMEIR,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Motion heard on June 7, 2012, at Edmonton, Alberta
Before: The Honourable Justice Wyman W. Webb
Appearances:
|
For the
Appellant:
|
The Appellant Himself
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Paige Atkinson
|
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
The Respondent’s Motion to quash the
Appellant’s appeals under the Excise Tax Act in relation to the
reassessments issued for the reporting periods from April 3, 2006 to
December 31, 2006 and from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007 is granted,
without costs, and these appeals are quashed.
Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 22nd day of June 2012.
“Wyman W. Webb”
Citation: 2012TCC228
Date: 20120622
Dockets: 2012-624(IT)I
2012-625(GST)I
BETWEEN:
AMEIR AMEIR,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
Webb J.
[1]
The Respondent brought
Motions to quash the Appellant’s appeals under the Income Tax Act (the “ITA”)
in relation to the reassessments issued for his 2006 and 2007 taxation years and
the Excise Tax Act (the “ETA”) in relation to the reassessments
issued for the reporting periods from April 3, 2006 to December 31, 2006 (the
“2006 Reporting Period”) and from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007 (the
“2007 Reporting Period”). The basis for each Motion was that the Appellant had
not filed notices of objection within the required time periods under the ITA
or the ETA. Each statute provides that a person who chooses to object to
an assessment (or a reassessment) must do so within 90 days of such assessment
(or reassessment) or make an application to extend the time
for serving such objection.
[2]
The Appellant was
reassessed under the ITA in relation to his 2006 and 2007 taxation years
by notices of reassessment dated April 29, 2010. The Appellant was reassessed
under the ETA in relation to the 2006 Reporting Period by a Notice of Reassessment
dated November 21, 2007 and in relation to the 2007 Reporting Period by a
Notice of Reassessment dated April 19, 2010.
[3]
At the hearing of the
Motion, the Appellant testified that he sent an objection to three different
places on July 21, 2010 – the Board of Revision in Winnipeg, this Court in Edmonton and the Chief of Appeals for the Canada Revenue
Agency in Winnipeg. A copy of the letter addressed to the
Board of Revision was attached to the Affidavit filed by the Respondent. I
accept the Appellant’s testimony that one of the persons to whom he sent his
objection was the Chief of Appeals for the Canada Revenue Agency in Winnipeg.
[4]
Since the Notice of Objection
was sent within 90 days from the date of the Notices of Reassessment issued
under the ITA (April 29, 2010), the Appellant had filed Notices of Objection
to these reassessments within the time period permitted under the ITA.
As well since the Minister did not confirm or reassess (the Minister does not
have any record of receiving this notice of objection) and since more than 90
days have elapsed since that notice of objection was served, the Appellant had
the right to appeal to this Court under subsection 169(1) of the ITA
when he filed his Notice of Appeal on February 8, 2012. Therefore the
Respondent’s Motion to quash the Appellant’s appeals under the ITA is
dismissed and the Respondent shall have until August 24, 2012 to file a Reply.
[5]
However, the Notices of
Reassessment issued under the ETA were sent more than 90 days before the
Appellant sent his Notice of Objection on July 21, 2010. The Notice of Reassessment
for the 2006 Reporting Period was sent on November 21, 2007 and therefore
the Appellant, on July 21, 2010, could not have served a valid notice of
objection, nor could he, at that time, have requested an extension of time to
serve a notice of objection. The time within which an application must be made
for an extension of time is within one year after the expiration of the time
within which a notice of objection could be served (without an extension of
time). This would mean that the time within which an application could have
been made to extend the time to serve a notice of objection in relation to the
2006 Reporting Period was one year and 90 days from November 21, 2007 (which
expired long before July 21, 2010). Since there is no valid notice of objection
in relation to the reassessment issued for the 2006 Reporting Period, this
appeal is quashed.
[6]
The Notice of Reassessment
for the 2007 Reporting Period was sent on April 19, 2010. While the ninety
day period within which the Appellant could have served a notice of objection
(without an extension of time) had expired by July 21, 2010, the Appellant
could have applied to the Minister for an extension of time to serve the notice
of objection. However, without such application having been granted either by
the Minister under section 303 of the ETA or by this Court under section
304 of the ETA, the Appellant does not have a valid notice of objection
in relation to the reassessment issued for the 2007 Reporting Period.
[7]
In order to appeal to
this Court under the ETA the Appellant must have served a valid notice
of objection. Since the Notice of Objection in relation
to the reassessment issued for the 2007 Reporting Period was not served within
90 days of the date of this reassessment and since neither the Minister under
section 303 of the ETA nor this Court under section 304 of the ETA
have granted an application to extend the time to serve a notice of objection
in relation to this reassessment, the Appellant does not have a valid notice of
objection in relation to the reassessment issued for the 2007 Reporting Period.
The Appellant’s appeal under the ETA in relation to the reassessment
issued for the 2007 Reporting Period is therefore quashed.
[8]
As a result, the
Respondent’s Motion to quash the Appellant’s appeals under the ITA in
relation to the reassessments issued for his 2006 and 2007 taxation years is
dismissed, without costs. The Respondent shall have until August 24, 2012 to
file a Reply in relation to these appeals under the ITA.
[9]
The Respondent’s Motion
to quash the Appellant’s appeals under the ETA in relation to the
reassessments issued for the 2006 Reporting Period and for the 2007 Reporting
Period is granted, without costs, and these appeals are quashed.
Signed at Toronto, Ontario,
this 22nd day of June 2012.
“Wyman W. Webb”
CITATION: 2012TCC228
COURT FILE NOS.: 2012-624(IT)I; 2012-625(GST)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: AMEIR AMEIR AND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton,
Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: June 7, 2012
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The
Honourable Justice Wyman W. Webb
DATE OF ORDER: June 22, 2012
APPEARANCES:
|
For the
Appellant:
|
The Appellant Himself
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Paige Atkinson
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent: Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa,
Canada
Email this Content