2000-1066(GST)APP
BETWEEN:
KENNETH MICHAEL SZCZERBA,
Applicant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Application heard on July 25, 2000 in Calgary,
Alberta by
the Honourable Judge D. W. Beaubier
Appearances
Counsel for the
Applicant:
J. J. Kelly
Counsel for the
Respondent:
Mark Heseltine
JUDGMENT
The
application for an Order extending the time within which to file
a Notice of Objection to the reassessment made under the
Excise Tax Act, notice of which is dated July 31, 1998 and
bears number 10CT-115882094 is dismissed in accordance with the
attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed
at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 23rd day of August,
2000.
J.T.C.C.
Date: 20000823
Docket: 2000-1066(GST)APP
BETWEEN:
KENNETH MICHAEL SZCZERBA,
Applicant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Beaubier, J.T.C.C.
[1] This application by the Applicant
to extend the time to file an objection respecting a reassessment
of GST under the Excise Tax Act (the
"Act") was heard at Calgary, Alberta on July 25,
2000. At the opening of hearing the solicitor for the Respondent
applied to quash the application on the basis of the particulars
described in the Affidavit of Rhéal Plamondon which,
without quoting the exhibits, reads:
I, Rhéal Plamondon, of the City of Calgary, in the
Province of Alberta, MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:
1. I am an
Officer of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency in the City of
Calgary, in the Province of Alberta.
2. I have
charge of the appropriate records of the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency and have knowledge of the practice of the Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency.
3. I have
examined the records of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
relating to the application of the Applicant and have knowledge
of the facts of the application.
4. A careful
examination and search of the records show that by way of a
Notice of Assessment dated October 30, 1996, the
Minister of National Revenue assessed the Applicant net tax of
$8,296.61, interest of $814.35 and penalty of $805.36 in respect
of the Applicant's reporting periods ending between
January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1995.
Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A" to this my
Affidavit is a copy of the Notice of Assessment.
5. My
examination of these records shows that the Applicant filed with
the Minister a Notice of Objection on May 22, 1998.
Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "B" to this my
Affidavit is a copy of the Applicant's Notice of
Objection.
6. My
examination of these records shows that the Minister allowed the
objection in part by Notice of Decision dated July 31, 1998 and
by Notice of Reassessment number 10CT-115882094 reassessed the
Applicant net tax of $2,887.00, interest of $245.85 and penalty
of $239.91. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "C"
to this my Affidavit is a copy of the Notice of Decision and the
Notice of Reassessment.
7. A careful
examination and search of the records shows that the Applicant
did not file a Notice of Objection with the Minister of National
Revenue in respect of the said Notice of Reassessment within the
time limit prescribed by section 301 of the Excise Tax
Act.
6. A careful
examination and search of the records shows that the Applicant
did not make an application to the Minister of National Revenue
to extend the time to file a Notice of Objection as prescribed by
section 303 of the Excise Tax Act.
7. I make this
Affidavit in support of the Respondent's application for an
order dismissing the application on the grounds that no
application was filed for an extension of time to file a Notice
of objection as required by section 303 of the Excise Tax
Act.
[2] In any event, the following dates
are germaine:
1. July 31, 1998, Notice of
Reassessment;
2. December 2, 1999,
Application (untitled) mailed to Tax Court;
3. January 31, 2000
additional material to complete application received by Tax Court
from Applicant's solicitor;
4. 14 March, 2000,
Application forwarded by Tax Court to Respondent.
Thus, using the two best dates for the Applicant - July 31,
1998 for the Notice of Reassessment and December 2, 1999 for the
Application, a total of more than one year and four months had
expired before any application to extend the time in which to
object was made to anyone.
[3] An objection must be filed within
90 days (Subsection 301(1)) and an application for an extension
of time to file an objection may be filed for one year after the
90 day period (Paragraph 303(7)(a)). Similarly, an appeal
must be brought within 90 days (Section 302) and an
application for an extension of time to file an appeal may be
applied for within one year after the 90 day period (Paragraph
305(5)(a)).
[4] As a result, the Applicant brought
his application more than one month after all time limits had
expired.
[5] For these reasons, the application
is dismissed.
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 23rd day of
August, 2000.
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE
NO.:
2000-1066(GST)APP
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
Kenneth Michael Szczerba v. The
Queen
PLACE OF
HEARING:
Calgary, Alberta
DATE OF
HEARING:
July 25, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable D.
W. Beaubier
DATE OF
JUDGMENT:
August 23, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for the
Applicant: Mr. J.
J. Kelly
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Mark
Heseltine
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Applicant:
Name:
Mr. J. J. Kelly
Firm:
For the
Respondent:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
Email this Content