97-2395(GST)I
BETWEEN:
PRAVEEN SOOD,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Motion decided on written submissions of the
parties, by
the Honourable Judge D.G.H. Bowman
Representatives
For the
Appellant:
The Appellant herself
Counsel for the Respondent: Anne-Marie
Lévesque
ORDER
Upon
motion by the respondent for a correction to the judgment dated
February 12, 1999;
And
upon reading the written submissions of the parties;
The
motion is denied.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 30th day of April 1999.
J.T.C.C.
Date: 19990430
Docket: 97-2395(GST)I
BETWEEN:
PRAVEEN SOOD,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
Bowman, J.T.C.C.
[1] In this motion the respondent asks
that I correct my judgment with respect to the appellant's
GST reporting period for the 1995 taxation year.
[2] The point raised is a somewhat
novel one and so I ordered a transcript of the brief hearing.
[3] What transpired was that
Ms. Sood was in an accident and suffered a concussion and
was hospitalized. She attended at the offices of the Department
of National Revenue and an official of the Department assisted
her in preparing her income tax return and also in preparing her
GST return. As a result she received a refund of $2,808.33.
However, a subsequent assessment was issued whereby the Minister
of National Revenue demanded that she repay the amount that she
had previously been refunded. Interest and penalties were also
assessed. On objection the liability for tax was reduced but
interest and penalties on the reduced amount were imposed.
[4] At the hearing Ms. Sood
proposed a settlement. I informed her that this court was not the
appropriate forum in which to negotiate settlements.
[5] Nonetheless, Mr. Leclaire
asked for a brief adjournment to discuss settlement and in fact a
settlement was reached. The settlement involved a reduction of
the liability for tax for 1994 and Ms. Sood agreed not to
pursue her claim for a reduction of tax for 1995. Part of the
settlement involved an undertaking by Mr. Leclaire to
recommend to the Minister that he exercise his discretion to
waive the interest and penalties for both 1994 and 1995.
[6] In the result, I issued the
following judgment:
On consent given in open court, the appeal from the assessment
made under the Excise Tax Act for the period ending
December 31, 1994 is allowed and the assessment is referred
back to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and
reassessment to allow the appellant a further input tax credit of
$1,656.
The appeals form the assessments made under the Excise Tax
Act for the periods ending December 31, 1994 and December 31,
1995 are further allowed and the assessments are referred back to
the Minister of National Revenue for the purpose of permitting
the Minister to exercise his discretion to waive the interest and
penalties imposed in respect of the assessments in issue, based
upon the recommendation of counsel for the respondent and of the
Court, in light of the appellant's personal situation.
There will be no order for costs.
[7] The respondent argues that I
should have dismissed the appeal for 1995 since I was not
granting any relief from the tax imposed.
[8] No doubt under the so-called slip
rule in Rule 168 or 172 I can correct errors where the
judgment does not accord with what I intended to do. The judgment
is, however, exactly what I intended: the appeal for 1994 was
allowed to give the appellant a further input tax credit of
$1,656 and the appeals for both years were allowed solely to
permit the Minister to consider exercising his discretion to
delete the interest and penalties for both years, based on the
court's and Mr. Leclaire's recommendation. I have no
power to direct the Minister to exercise his discretion, but I
can make a non-binding recommendation. The reason I believed that
the appeal from the assessment for 1995 should have been allowed
and not dismissed is simply that allowing the appeal leaves the
year open for the Minister to reassess. If the time limit for
reassessing under section 298 of the Excise Tax Act
had passed the Minister could well take the position that he was
powerless to reassess to delete the interest and penalties.
[9] I am quite frankly at a loss to
understand why the motion was brought. Allowing the appeal solely
to keep the year open for a reassessment resulting from the
possible exercise of the Minister's discretion under
section 281.1 of the Act imposes no obligation on the
Minister. It merely facilitates his implementation of his
discretion.
[10] The motion is denied.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 30th day of April 1999.
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE
NO.:
97-2395(GST)I
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
Between Praveen Sood and
Her Majesty The Queen
REASONS FOR ORDER
BY:
The Honourable D.G.H. Bowman
DATE OF
ORDER:
April 30, 1999
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the
appellant:
The appellant herself
Counsel for the
respondent: Anne-Marie
Lévesque
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the appellant:
Name:
--
Firm:
--
For the
respondent:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
Email this Content