Date: 20010514
Docket: 98-701-IT-I
BETWEEN:
MARIO LEMAY,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
________________________________________________________
For the
Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Mounes Ayadi
_________________________________________________________
Reasons for Judgment
(Delivered orally from the bench on June 3, 1999, at
Montréal, Quebec)
P.R. Dussault, J.T.C.C.
[1]
Based on the principles laid down in the two decisions given to
me by Mr. Ayadi, I unfortunately must dismiss the appeal.
Taxpayers do not necessarily have to wait to report their income
until they have received their T3s, T4s or T5s. Taxpayers who
make investments receive other documents, and if they realize
when preparing their income tax returns that some papers are
missing, I think they must ensure that they report all income
they have received from the investments mentioned in the
documents they have received. It is not necessary to wait until
the T4 or T5 documents have been received where, as here, this
happens on a recurring basis. In view of these circumstances, the
penalty is upheld.
[2]
Mr. Lemay, I do not believe that what you have told me
constitutes proof of due diligence. I must, therefore, impose the
penalty under subsection 163(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Accordingly, your appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 14th day of May 2001.
"P. R. Dussault"
J.T.C.C.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Translation certified true on this 12th day of June
2001.
Stephen Balogh, Revisor
Email this Content