|
Docket: 2002-3445(GST)I
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
HENRY BHOPA,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on March 14, 2003 at Toronto,
Ontario
|
Before: The Honourable Judge D. W. Beaubier
|
|
|
|
Appearances:
|
|
|
|
For the Appellant:
|
The Appellant himself
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Edward Park
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The
appeal from the assessment made under the Excise Tax Act,
notice of which is dated February 19, 2001 and bears number
05CP0105854 is dismissed, in accordance with the attached Reasons
for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada this 18th day of March, 2003.
J.T.C.C.
|
Citation: 2003TCC136
|
|
Date:20030318
|
|
Docket: 2002-3445(GST)I
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
HENRY BHOPA,
|
|
Appellant,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Beaubier, J.T.C.C.
[1] This appeal pursuant to the
Informal Procedure was heard at Toronto Ontario on March 14,
2003. The Appellant and his wife, Sherissa Bhopa, testified on
behalf of the Appellant. William Chan, the GST auditor on the
file, testified on behalf of the Respondent.
[2] Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the Reply
to the Notice of Appeal read:
4. The
Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") assessed
the Appellant for the Period for a total net tax adjustment of
$7,916.04, consisting of adjustments to the Goods and Services
Tax ("GST") in the amount of $1,296.96 and adjustment
to Input Tax Credits ("ITC's") in the amount of
$6,619.09. Penalty of $446.59 and interest of $406.67 were added
to the total net tax adjustment.
5. In so
assessing the Appellant, the Minister made the following
assumptions of fact:
(a) at all material
times, the Appellant was a registrant for GST purposes for the
supply of dust cleaning, heating and air conditioning services
(the "Taxable Supplies") and operated as a sole
proprietor;
(b) during the
Period, the Appellant included ITC's relating to personal
expenses not relating to the provision of his Taxable
Supplies;
(c) the Appellant
failed to obtain sufficient evidence in such form containing such
information as would enable an amount of ITC's to be
determined;
(d) during the
Period, the Appellant failed to declare and remit GST on its
Taxable Supplies of $1,296.96; and
(e) the Appellant
failed to report and remit the GST assessed for the Period.
B.
ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
6. The issues
are
(a) whether the
Minister properly assessed the Appellant as stated in paragraph 4
above; and
(b) whether the
Minister properly disallowed the ITC's claimed by the
Appellant.
[3] None of the assumptions were
refuted.
[4] In particular, four periods of the
Appellant's business "Dust Doctor", in which he
cleaned heating and air conditioning ducts, were reassessed. They
were the periods ending September 30, 1999; December 31, 1999;
March 31, 2000; and June 30, 2000.
[5] The Appellant's accountant
filed a return for the June 30, 2000 period after the Appellant
failed to file and was automatically reassessed by the GST
authorities. This return was accepted and reassessed as filed.
That reassessment is therefore confirmed by the Court.
[6] Sherissa Bhopa originally filed
the other three quarterly returns. She admitted that her claim
for GST input tax credits for a Chrysler Intrepid for the period
ending September 30, 1999 was wrong. However, respecting the
remaining input tax credit claims and GST assessments, she stated
that she filed correctly, gave the proper receipts to the
Appellant's accountant and that he was instructed to deal
with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency on the reassessments for
the Appellant. The latter statement was confirmed by the
Appellant. She then stated that the accountant failed to return
all the receipts to her to carry out this appeal. None of the
alleged receipts in question were filed to rebut the
assumptions.
[7] William Chan stated that the
Appellant's accountant filed spread sheets with supporting
receipts in the course of the reassessment procedure and that
this material was acceptable and the reassessment in question
followed based on it.
[8] The Appellant offered no
supporting receipts or documentation appealing the matters in
dispute. Without them, as stated by Bowman, A.C.J. in Helsi
Construction Management Inc. v. The Queen [2001] G.S.T.C. 39,
he cannot succeed.
[9] The appeal is dismissed.
[10] Pursuant to the application of the
Appellant at the hearing, the Appellant's address for the
purposes of this appeal is now ordered to be:
293
Doubtfire Crescent
Markham, Ontario
L3S
3V9
Signed at Ottawa, Canada this 18th day of March, 2003.
J.T.C.C.
Email this Content