Docket: 2008-3186(IT)I
BETWEEN:
JAMES J. BELLIVEAU,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal
heard on July 20, 2009, at Prince
Rupert, British Columbia
Before: The Honourable
Justice D.W. Beaubier
Appearances:
|
Counsel for the Appellant:
|
The
Appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Whitney Dunn
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessment made under the Income
Tax Act for the 2006 taxation year is dismissed.
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 21st day of July 2009.
“D.W. Beaubier”
Citation: 2009TCC374
Date: 20090721
Docket: 2008-3186(IT)I
BETWEEN:
JAMES J. BELLIVEAU,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Beaubier, D.J.
[1]
This appeal pursuant to
the Informal Procedure was heard at Prince Rupert,
British Columbia on July 20, 2009. The Appellant was the only witness.
[2]
The subject of dispute
is set out in paragraphs 5-10 inclusive of the Reply which read as follows:
5. By way of a Notice dated September 27, 2007 (“Reassessment”), the
Minister reassessed the Appellant for the 2006 taxation year to include
unreported income of $1,893.76 (“Amount”) and to levy a federal penalty of
$189.30 (“Penalty”).
6. By Notice dated March 15, 2008, received by the Minister on March
19, 2008, the Appellant objected to the Reassessment.
7. By Notice dated August 13, 2008, the Minister confirmed the
Appellant’s 2006 taxation year because the Appellant failed to report the Amount
which had to be included in his income for the 2006 taxation year, and also
failed to report an amount that had to be included in his income for the 2005
taxation year, and therefore, the Appellant is liable to the Penalty, being 10%
of the Amount according to subsection 163(1) of the Income Tax Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c.1[5th Supp.] (“Act”).
8. In
determining the Appellant’s tax liability for the 2006 taxation year, the
Minister made the following assumptions of fact:
a)
in the 2005 taxation year, the Appellant failed
to report an amount of employment income totalling $10,333.00;
b)
no penalty was assessed in respect of this
failure to report income in 2005;
c)
in the 2006 taxation year, the Appellant was in
receipt of the following income:
|
Employment Insurance benefits
|
15,560.00
|
|
T4 – Heritage Salmon Ltd
|
2,901.03
|
|
T4A- Heritage Salmon Ltd
|
1,893.76
|
|
Total Income
|
20,354.79
|
d)
the Appellant reported total income of
$18,461.03 in filing his 2006 Return of Income;
e)
the Appellant failed to report the Amount; and
f)
the Appellant is not liable for any penalty
pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the Act with respect to the failure to
report the Amount in the 2006 taxation year.
B. ISSUES TO
BE DECIDED
9. The issues are whether the Minster properly included the Amount
in the Appellant’s income for the 2006 taxation year and properly assessed the
Penalty in the 2006 taxation year.
C. STATUTORY
PROVISIONS RELIED ON
10. He relies on
sections 3 and 150 and subsections 5(1) and 163(1) of the Act.
[3]
Assumptions 8 a, d, e
and f are correct. With respect to assumptions 8b and c the Court finds:
8b The Appellant believes that he paid a penalty of $51 for his 2005
failure. However, this amount cannot relate to a penalty provision of the Income
Tax Act because it does not accord with a calculation of any penalty due on
$10,333 under the Income Tax Act in 2005.
8c The Appellant is not sure whether he received $1,893.76 or not. He
is sure that he received a considerable sum by way of severance and accumulated
holiday pay and other compensations. He is also sure that he never received any
kind of T4 slip for the amount and therefore didn’t report it because he is of
the view that if there is no T4 slip it is not reportable income for income tax
purposes. In his view it is the government’s duty to get the proper T4 to him.
[4]
The Appellant is wrong.
It is his responsibility to report his taxable income each year for income tax
purposes whether he has a T4 or not. Moreover, his liability for the penalty in
question is strict. The assumptions and evidence before the Court are that he
did not report income in 2005 and he did not report income of $1,893.76 which
he received in 2006, as stated in assumption 8c. For this reason the penalties
are due as assessed.
[5]
The appeal is
dismissed.
Signed at
Vancouver, British Columbia,
this 21st day of July 2009.
“D.W. Beaubier”
CITATION: 2009TCC374
COURT FILE NO.: 2008-3186(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: JAMES J. BELLIVEAU AND
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Prince
Rupert, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: July 20, 2009
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The
Honourable Justice D.W. Beaubier
DATE OF JUDGMENT: July 21, 2009
APPEARANCES:
|
Counsel for the
Appellant:
|
The Appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Whitney Dunn
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent: John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa,
Canada
Email this Content