Stepanoff v. Canada, 2007 FCA 40

Date: 20070208

Docket: A-102-06

Citation: 2007 FCA 40

CORAM:       DESJARDINS J.A.

                        NOËL J.A.                

                        PELLETIER J.A.

BETWEEN:

VLADIMIR STEPANOFF

Appellant

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on February 6, 2007.

Judgment delivered at Montréal, Quebec, on February 8, 2007.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                                                                 PELLETIER J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:                                                                                    DESJARDINS J.A.

                                                                                                                        NOËL J.A.

Date: 20070208

Docket: A-102-06

Citation: 2007 FCA 40

CORAM:       DESJARDINS J.A.

                        NOËL J.A.                

                        PELLETIER J.A.

BETWEEN:

VLADIMIR STEPANOFF

Appellant

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PELLETIER J.A.

[1]               Mr. Stepanoff appeals from the decision of the Tax Court of Canada, reported at [2006] T.C.J. No. 44, dismissing his appeal with respect to his 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years. The appeal raises three issues. The first has to do with the characterization of sums received by Mr. Stepanoff pursuant to a licensing agreement which he concluded with Raconix Corporation. The second has to do with the adjusted cost base of shares issued to Mr. Stepanoff as a result of the sale of some software with a value in excess of $1,000,000. The third issue is Mr. Stepanoff’s liability to pay tax on interest which accrued while he was not resident in Canada but which was paid to him after he re-established his Canadian residence.

[2]               It was pointed out to Mr. Stepanoff, who represented himself, that he faced a heavy burden in seeking to displace what are essentially findings of fact and inferences drawn by the Tax Court judge. See Housen v. Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235. With respect to each of the issues raised by Mr. Stepanoff, there were facts capable of supporting the conclusions reached by the Tax Court judge. It may be true, as alleged by Mr. Stepanoff, that those facts came about because of his financial inexperience or the machinations of others, but they remain the facts and the Tax Court judge was entitled to rely upon them.

[3]               As a result, I see no basis upon which this Court could intervene. The appeal should therefore be dismissed with costs.

"J.D. Denis Pelletier"

“I concur.

          Desjardins J.A.”

“I agree.

          Noël J.A.”

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                                                              A-102-06

(APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE TAX COURT OF CANADA DATED FEBRUARY 9, 2006, DOCKET NUMBER 2003-1207(IT)(G).

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                              Vladimir Stepanoff v.

                                                                                                Her Majesty the Queen

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                        Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:                                                          February 6, 2007

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                                     PELLETIER J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:                                                         DESJARDINS J.A.

                                                                                                NOËL J.A.

DATED:                                                                                 February 8, 2007

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: