|
Docket: 2003-531(IT)APP
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
CAROLLE BELLEY (LABONTÉ),
|
|
Applicant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Application heard on July 23, 2003, at
Québec, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
|
Appearances :
|
|
For the Applicant:
|
The Applicant herself
|
|
Agent of the Respondent:
|
Érick Bouchard (articling student)
|
___________________________________________________________________
AMENDED ORDER
The order issued March 15, 2004, has been
amended. The amendments are included in the wording of this
document.
This is
an application for an order extending the time in which appeals
from the assessments made under the Income Tax Act
("the Act") for the 1992, 1994 and 1996 taxation years,
may be commenced.
The application for an extension is dismissed in relation to
the assessments issued respectively on
July 11, 1997, and June 19, 1998,
because 53-month to 64-month periods, respectively,
elapsed between the assessments and the tardy notices of
objection.
No later than April 14, 2004, the respondent shall rule
on the merits of the notice of objection filed on
November 22, 2002, in respect of the assessment made on
September 20, 2002, so that the applicant can assert her
rights.
As for
the assessment dated January 20, 2003, which pertains
to the 2003 taxation year, the application for an extension of
time was prepared on January 31, 2003, and filed with
the registry of the Tax Court of Canada on
February 7, 2003, less than 20 days after the
assessment. The application is therefore allowed in that it shall
be deemed to be a notice of objection duly produced within the
allotted time.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 11th day of May 2004.
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 24th day of February 2005.
Jacques Deschênes, Translator
|
Citation: 2004TCC84
|
|
Date: 20040511
|
|
Docket: 2003-531(IT)APP
|
|
|
|
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
CAROLLE BELLEY (LABONTÉ),
|
|
Applicant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
AMENDED REASONS FOR ORDER
Tardif J.
[1] The respondents issued several
notices of reassessment. The dates, periods and subject matter of
those notices are stated below:
|
Date of reassessment
|
Year concerned
|
Subject matter
|
|
Sept. 20, 2002
|
1992
|
Child Tax Benefit (CCTB)
|
|
Jan. 20, 2003
|
1994
|
Child Tax Benefit (CCTB)
|
|
June 19, 1998
|
1996
|
Child Tax Benefit (CCTB)
|
|
July 11, 1997
|
1996
|
Goods and Services Tax Credit (GSTC)
|
[2] The appellant responded to these
reassessments as follows:
|
Date
of reassessment
|
Date
of response
|
Nature of response
|
Outcome
|
|
Sept. 20, 2002
|
Nov. 22, 2002
|
Notice of Objection
|
Respondent admits it did not answer appellant.
|
|
Jan. 20, 2003
|
none
|
none
|
none
|
|
June 19, 1998
|
Nov. 22, 2002
|
Notice of Objection
|
Respondent notified appellant that her Notices of
Objection to the reassessments issued July 11, 1997, and
June 19, 1998, respectively, were invalid because they were
produced after the deadlines set out in the Act.
|
|
July 11, 1997
|
Nov. 22, 2002
|
Notice of Objection
|
|
[3] As for the notices of reassessment
issued respectively on September 20, 2002, and
January 20, 2003, for the tax years 1992 and 1994, the
notices of reassessment were issued well beyond the
three-year limit contemplated in
section 152(3.1)(b) of the Act.
[4] The Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency can issue a notice of reassessment after the
three-year time limit has expired, provided the conditions
in subparagraph 152(4.01)(a)(i) are met:
152. (4.01) Assessment to which par. 152(4)(a)
or (b) applies - Notwithstanding subsections 152(4)
and 152(5), an assessment, reassessment or additional assessment
to which paragraph 152(4)(a) or 152(4)(b) applies
in respect of a taxpayer for a taxation year may be made after
the taxpayer's normal reassessment period in respect of the
year to the extent that, but only to the extent that, it can
reasonably be regarded as relating to
(a) where paragraph 152(4)(a) applies to the
assessment, reassessment or additional assessment,
(i) any misrepresentation made by the taxpayer or a
person who filed the taxpayer's return of income for the year
that is attributable to neglect, carelessness or wilful default
or any fraud committed by the taxpayer or that person in filing
the return or supplying any information under this Act,
[5] The applicant therefore has clear
arguments against the merits of the assessments issued on
September 20, 2002, and January 20, 2003.
[6] Since the respondent admits that
it never responded to the appellant's notice of objection,
the respondent is ordered to rule on the merits of the notice of
objection within 30 days, following which Carole
Belley (Labonté) may institute an appeal within the
permitted time.
[7] With regard to the application
regarding the reassessment dated January 20, 2003, the
application for an extension was prepared and produced within 20
days, specifically on January 31 and
February 7, 2003, respectively, so the applicant was
within the time permitted for being fully entitled to a review of
the reassessment through the ordinary objection process.
Consequently, the respondent shall examine the file as though the
appellant has filed a notice of objection. Following the decision
on the objection, the applicant shall be entitled to the time
allotted by the Act to institute an appeal before the Tax Court
of Canada, assuming the assessment is not nil.
[8] With regard to the reassessments
pertaining to the 1996 taxation years, and issued respectively on
June 11, 1997, and June 19, 1998, the
appellant produced her notice of objection after the time
allotted by the Act had elapsed. Specifically, the appellant
filed her notice of objection on November 22, 2002,
which is more than 53 months after reassessment issued on
June 19, 1998, and more than 64 months after the
reassessment issued on July 11, 1997.
[9] Consequently, the reassessments
for the taxation year 1996, issued respectively on
July 11, 1997, and June 19, 1998, with regard
to the Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) and the Goods and Services Tax
Credit (GSTC), are confirmed on the merits because the time for
objecting and the time for obtaining an extension of the time
have both elapsed long ago.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 11th day of May 2004.
Tardif J.
Translation certified true
on this 24th day of February 2005.
Jacques Deschênes, Translator