Hooda v. The Queen, docket 1999-2759(IT)I (Informal Procedure)

Date: 20000608

Docket: 1999-2759(IT)I

BETWEEN:

IQBAL HOODA,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

For the Appellant: The Appellant himself

For the Respondent: Shameem Rashid

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered orally from the bench at

Toronto, Ontario, on March 16, 2000)

Sarchuk J.T.C.C.

[1]      This is an appeal by Iqbal Hooda from an assessment of tax with respect to his 1995 and 1996 taxation years. The assessment proceeded on the basis that he failed to report interest income received from Lloyds of London (Lloyds) in the amounts of $28,804 and $9,601, respectively. Mr. Hooda stated that the amounts deposited into an investment account with Lloyds were not his and that he did not contribute or have the means to contribute into that account. He says he was merely acting as agent on behalf of his brothers who are not residents of either Canada or England and who are transient and have no permanent mailing address. The Appellant's testimony is that for the foregoing reason, he permitted his name and address to be used to maintain this account on their behalf.

[2]      I accept as a fact that Revenue Canada requested information with respect to this account and apparently so did counsel for the Respondent. Nothing has been produced by the Appellant with the exception of four slips which indicate deposits into the account. Beyond that, the Appellant has provided very little in the way of support for his case. It is the responsibility of a taxpayer to produce the material necessary to support his appeal on the date of the trial. It is not up to the Court or counsel for the Minister to write letters to anybody or direct the fact-collecting process as suggested by the Appellant or to act as his counsel or advisor. The Court will attempt to assist an unrepresented Appellant as much as possible in the presentation of his case, but beyond that it cannot go.

[3]      I am satisfied that Mr. Hooda was aware that the necessary documentation required to establish the facts that he alleges would have to be obtained from Lloyds. I do not know what efforts he made but nothing has been presented to the Court today which is capable of assisting him. In circumstances such as this, it is important to produce supporting extrinsic evidence to establish that an agency exists. The account at Lloyds was in the Appellant's name and the interest earned was deposited directly into that account. The Appellant on the face of it had control over these funds and there is no evidence suggesting that there were any restrictions with respect to this control. The Appellant provided no documentation from Lloyds or any testimony by way of affidavit, or even by way of a letter, from his brothers to support his claim that the interest income in issue was not his. Quite frankly, without some such evidence this Court has no alternative but to dismiss the appeal.

Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 8th day of June, 2000.

J.T.C.C.

COURT FILE NO.:                             1999-2759(IT)I

STYLE OF CAUSE:                           Iqbal Hooda and Her Majesty the Queen

PLACE OF HEARING:                      Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING:                        March 16, 2000

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:     The Honourable Judge A.A. Sarchuk

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                     March 21, 2000

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:                      The Appellant himself

Counsel for the Respondent:      Shameem Rashid

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For the Appellant:

Name:                 N/A

Firm:                 

For the Respondent:                  Morris Rosenberg

                                                Deputy Attorney General of Canada

                                                          Ottawa, Canada