Date: 20060426
Docket: A-102-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 150
CORAM: NOËL J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
ROCHELLE MOSS
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on April 26, 2006
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on April 26, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A.
Date: 20060426
Docket: A-102-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 150
CORAM: NOËL J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
ROCHELLE MOSS
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on April 26, 2006)
SHARLOW J.A.
[1] This is an appeal of a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada (2005 TCC 139) dismissing the appeal of Rochelle Moss from reassessments of tax for 1998 to 2001. The issue was whether Ms. Moss is subject to tax on income described in T3 slips issued to her by one or more insurance companies.
[2] No evidence was presented in the Tax Court to refute the factual assumptions upon which the reassessments were based. There is no evidence that the issuers of the T3 slips made any error in issuing the T3 slips. The spouse of Ms. Moss testified in the Tax Court that he was not aware that the amounts shown on the T3 slips were received by Ms. Moss or applied for her benefit or to her credit, but there is no evidence on that point from Ms. Moss or from the issuers of the T3 slips.
[3] It appears that the relief requested for Ms. Moss from the Tax Court was based on the assumption that the Tax Court could grant Ms. Moss relief on equitable grounds. In that regard, a number of complaints were made on behalf of Ms. Moss that certain tax collection actions taken by the tax authorities were unethical, abusive, malicious and punitive. Those steps included a garnishing order that resulted in the cashing of one or more insurance policies, described by Mr. Moss as tax exempt polices, in a manner that precluded the funds from being reinvested in other tax exempt policies. It was also argued for Ms. Moss that a jeopardy order under section 225.2 of the Income Tax Act was obtained by tax collection officials on the basis of a misleading affidavit.
[4] The judge concluded that she did not have the legal authority to order the reassessments of Ms. Moss to be vacated or set aside on the basis of allegations of wrongful or abusive conduct by tax officials in the collection of tax debts, even if those allegations had been proved. In our view, she was correct.
[5] If unlawful or improper tax collection actions occur, and are proved, it may be possible to obtain a remedy by commencing appropriate proceedings in the Federal Court, but as a matter of law, the Tax Court of Canada has no jurisdiction to set aside or vacate a reassessment because of such actions. In an appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court, this Court's jurisdiction is similarly limited.
[6] Based on our review of the record of this case, and the arguments presented for Ms. Moss, we are unable to find any error on the part of the judge that would warrant the intervention of this Court.
[7] This appeal will be dismissed with costs.
"K. Sharlow"
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-102-05
(APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE TAX COURT OF CANADA DATED FEBRUARY 16, 2005, DOCKET NO. 2002-4599(IT)I)
STYLE OF CAUSE: Rochelle Moss v. Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Winnipeg, Manitoba
DATE OF HEARING: April 26, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
MALONE J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: SHARLOW J.A.
APPEARANCES:
| Rochelle Moss
Winnipeg, MB
|
ON HER OWN BEHALF
|
| Tim Doyle
Department of Justice
Winnipeg, MB
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Rochelle Moss
Winnipeg, MB
|
ON HER OWN BEHALF
|
| John H. Sims Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content