McArthur
J.T.C.C.:
—
This
was
an
application
by
the
applicant
for
an
order
to
extend
time
within
which
to
serve
a
Notice
of
Objection
in
respect
to
her
1992
taxation
year.
The
Reply
to
an
Application
for
an
Extension
of
Time
read
in
part
as
follows:
1.
The
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(the
“Minister”)
reassessed
the
applicant
for
the
1992
taxation
year
by
Notice
of
Reassessment
dated
and
mailed
to
the
applicant
on
July
9,
1993.
2.
The
applicant
did
not
serve
on
the
Minister
a
Notice
of
Objection
to
the
reassessment
within
the
time
limited
by
subsection
165(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
(the
“Act”).
3.
The
applicant
purported
to
object
to
the
reassessment
by
an
undated
Notice
of
Objection
received
by
the
Ottawa
Taxation
Centre
of
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
(the
“Department”)
on
August
19,
1994.
4.
The
Minister
notified
the
applicant
by
letter
dated
September
30,
1994
that
the
Notice
of
Objection
was
received
beyond
the
limitation
period
therefor
but
that
the
applicant
could
apply
to
the
Minister
to
extend
the
time
to
object.
5.
An
Application
dated
March
17,
1995
under
subsection
166.1(1)
of
the
Act
for
an
extension
of
time
within
which
to
serve
on
the
Minister
a
Notice
of
Objection
to
the
said
reassessment
was
postmarked
March
30,
1995.
6.
The
Minister
refused
the
said
application
and
notified
the
applicant
of
his
decision
by
registered
mail
on
May
12,
1995.
7.
An
Application
under
subsection
166.2(1)
of
the
Act
for
an
extension
of
time
within
which
to
serve
on
the
Minister
a
Notice
of
Objection
to
the
said
reassessment
was
received
by
this
Honourable
Court
on
August
10,
1995.
Position
of
the
applicant
She
was
unaware
that
she
could
object
to
and
appeal
her
tax
assessment.
Her
facts
and
reasons
for
objection
included:
Re:
Susan
Thibaudeau
Child
Support
Case
Due
to
the
outcome
of
the
Federal
Court
of
Appeal
decision
holding
unconstitutional
the
Income
Tax
Act
Provision
which
taxes
child
support
payments
in
the
hands
of
the
custodial
parent
we
would
like
to
appeal
the
taxation
of
support
payments
for
1992.
In
a
letter
dated
August
9,
1995,
she
included
on
page
5:
If
you
deny
me
this
appeal
you
continue
to
discriminate
against
me
and
continue
to
push
me
into
further
indebtedness.
I
feel
like
you
are
rewarding
my
ex-husband
for
deserting
his
family.
My
children
have
unfortunately
learned
that
the
law
works
best
for
those
who
have
power,
money
or
infinite
familiarity
with
the
law
(as
does
their
dad).
The
money
you
are
taxing
me
on
was
intended
to
make
a
better
life
for
my
children.
Give
my
children
and
I
back
our
futures
and
recognize
this
appeal.
I
was
unaware
I
had
the
right
to
object
to
my
taxes.
Position
of
Respondent
The
Reply
to
an
Application
for
an
Extension
of
Time
read
as
follows:
8.
The
Respondent
submits
that
the
Application
should
be
dismissed
for
the
following
reasons:
(a)
the
applicant
did
not
demonstrate
that
she
was
unable
to
act
or
to
instruct
another
to
act
in
her
name
within
the
time
otherwise
limited
by
the
Act
for
serving
Notices
of
Objection,
as
required
by
clause
166.2(5)(b)(i)(A)
of
the
Act;
(b)
the
applicant
did
not
demonstrate
that
she
had
a
bona
fide
intention
to
object
within
the
time
otherwise
limited
by
the
Act
for
so
doing,
as
required
by
clause
166.2(5)(b)(i)(B)
of
the
Act;
(c)
the
applicant
did
not
demonstrate
that
on
the
basis
of
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
Application
and
the
circumstances
of
the
case,
it
would
be
just
and
equitable
to
make
an
order
extending
the
time,
within
the
meaning
of
subparagraph
166.2(5)(b)(ii)
of
the
Act;
(d)
the
applicant
did
not
demonstrate
that
the
Application
to
the
Minister
was
made
as
soon
as
circumstances
permitted,
as
required
by
subparagraph
166.2(5)(b)(iii)
of
the
Act.
The
Respondent’s
counsel
referred
the
Court
to
the
decision
D'Arcy
v.
R.
(sub
nom.
D'Arcy
v.
Canada),
[1995]
2
C.T.C.
2027
(T.C.C.)
and
Thibaudeau
v.
R.
(sub
nom.
Thibaudeau
v.
Canada),
[1995]
1
C.T.C.
382,
95
D.T.C.
5273
(S.C.C.);
[1994]
C.T.C.
4,
94
D.T.C.
6230
(F.C.A.).
The
applicant
was
aware
of
the
reversal
of
the
Federal
Court
of
Appeal’s
decision
in
Thibaudeau
by
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
wherein
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
held
that
the
provisions
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
paragraph
56(1
)(b)
of
the
Act
in
question,
do
not
impose
a
burden
or
withhold
a
benefit
that
offends
subsection
15(1)
of
the
Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms.
In
the
present
situation
tax
is
imposed
on
the
person
receiving
the
income.
This
is
not
prejudicial.
The
contributing
spouse
benefits
from
a
deduction
which
hopefully
result
in
increasing
the
available
resources
used
for
the
benefit
of
the
children.
The
distribution
of
the
available
funds
from
one
of
the
spouses
is
directed
by
the
applicable
family
law
in
accordance
with
the
needs
and
best
interest
of
the
child
or
children.
The
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
found
that
the
fact
that
tax
saving
resulting
from
the
inclusion/deduction
sections
does
not
benefit
both
parents
in
equal
proportion
does
not
infringe
the
equality
of
rights
as
protected
by
subsection
15(1)
of
the
Charter.
D’Arcy
was
an
application
similar
to
the
present
one
where
in
Judge
Christie
of
this
Court
dismissed
the
application
because
he
found
that
the
taxpayer
could
not
have
had
a
bona
fide
intention
to
object
to
an
assessment
if
at
the
time
the
applicant
was
required
to
have
the
intention
to
object
she
was
not
aware
of
the
Federal
Court
of
Appeal
decision
in
Thibaudeau.
In
any
event,
given
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
decision
in
Thibaudeau,
I
do
not
feel
it
would
serve
a
useful
purpose
to
have
the
appeal
heard
on
its
merits.
For
these
reasons,
the
application
is
dismissed.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content