McArthur
J.T.C.C.:-This
is
an
application
under
section
167
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
"Act")
to
extend
the
time
for
instituting
a
notice
of
appeal
to
an
assessment
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(the
"Minister")
of
the
applicant’s
liability
to
income
tax
for
1989,
1990
and
1991.
The
application
follows
upon
a
refusal
by
the
Minister
to
extend
time.
Included
in
his
application
the
applicant
stated
the
following:
The
reasons
as
to
why
it
was
not
possible
to
serve
the
notice
of
appeal
before
the
expiration
of
90
days
from
the
day
the
notice
of
confirmation
was
mailed
to
the
taxpayer
are
as
follows:
(1)
The
taxpayer
was
unable
to
give
this
matter
the
attention
it
required
during
the
90
days
following
the
date
of
mailing
the
notice
of
confirmation
to
the
taxpayer
due
to
the
fact
the
taxpayer’s
wife
was
advanced
in
her
pregnancy,
(the
taxpayer
and
his
wife
were
expecting
their
first
child)
and
consequently
the
taxpayer’s
available
time
was
focused
on
(1)
attending
to
his
wife’s
needs
and
(2)
making
necessary
arrangements
to
accommodate
the
new
addition
to
the
family.
(2)
Partly
as
a
consequence
of
the
facts
stated
in
(1)
above,
the
taxpayer
became
extremely
concerned
during
the
period
covering
the
90
days
from
the
date
of
mailing
the
notice
of
confirmation,
as
to
his
ability
to
pay
the
professional
fees
which
would
necessarily
be
incurred
by
him
to
make
an
appeal
to
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada.
Given
the
current
state
of
the
economy,
the
taxpayer
was
genuinely
worried
about
the
possibility
of
potential
layoffs
at
his
place
of
employment
(General
Motors
of
Canada)
and
was
therefore
hesitant
in
incurring
additional
costs
in
the
form
of
professional
fees.
These
fees
would
necessarily
be
incurred
at
a
time
when,
the
taxpayer
faced
the
possibility
of
a
reduced
income
stream
from
his
employment,
and
the
certainty
of
increased
costs
through
the
addition
of
a
new
family
member.
Unfortunately,
the
taxpayer
only
became
sufficiently
confident
that
his
employment
was
secure,
and
that
he
could
meet
the
costs
of
launching
an
appeal
to
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
after
the
90-day
limitation
period
referred
to
above
had
elapsed.
The
respondent’s
reply
included
the
following:
1.
The
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(the
"Minister")
assessed
the
applicant
for
the
1989,
1990
and
1991
taxation
years
by
respective
notices
of
reassess-
ment
dated
March
17,
1993.
2.
The
applicant
objected
to
the
reassessments
by
respective
notices
of
objection
dated
June
3,
1993
and
received
by
the
Ottawa
Taxation
Centre
of
the
Department
of
National
Revenue,
Taxation
on
June
11,
1993.
3.
The
Minister
confirmed
the
said
reassessments
by
notification
dated
and
mailed
to
the
applicant
on
March
30,
1994
pursuant
to
the
said
respective
notices
of
objection.
4.
The
applicant
did
not
file
notices
of
appeal
with
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
within
the
time
limited
by
subsection
169(1)
of
the
Act.
5.
The
application
for
an
extension
of
time
within
which
to
file
a
notice
of
appeal
with
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
was
filed
with
this
honourable
Court
on
October
13,
1994.
The
respondent
submitted
that
the
application
should
be
dismissed
for
the
following
reasons:
(a)
the
applicant
did
not
demonstrate
that
he
was
unable
to
act
or
to
instruct
another
to
act
in
his
name
within
the
time
otherwise
limited
by
the
Act
for
appealing,
as
required
by
clause
167(5)(b)(i)(A)
of
the
Act;
(b)
the
applicant
did
not
demonstrate
that
he
had
a
bona
fide
intention
to
appeal
within
the
time
otherwise
limited
by
the
Act
for
so
doing,
as
required
by
clause
167(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
167(5)(b)(ii)
of
the
Act;
(d)
the
applicant
did
not
demonstrate
that
the
application
was
made
as
soon
as
circumstances
permitted,
as
required
by
subparagraph
167(5)(b)(iii)
of
the
Act.
Subsection
167(5)
reads
as
follows:
167.(5)
No
order
shall
be
made
under
this
section
unless
(a)
the
application
is
made
within
one
year
after
the
expiration
of
the
time
limited
by
section
169
for
appealing;
and
(b)
the
taxpayer
demonstrates
that
(i)
within
the
time
otherwise
limited
by
section
169
for
appealing
the
taxpayer
(A)
was
unable
to
act
or
to
instruct
another
to
act
in
the
taxpayer’s
name,
or
(B)
had
a
bona
fide
intention
to
appeal,
(ii)
given
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
application
and
the
circumstances
of
the
case,
it
would
be
just
and
equitable
to
grant
the
application,
(iii)
the
application
was
made
as
soon
as
circumstances
permitted,
and
(iv)
there
are
reasonable
grounds
for
the
appeal.
The
applicant
and
his
accountant
both
testified.
They
confirmed
that
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
subsection
169(1)
of
the
Act
the
applicant
had
to
June
29,
1994
to
file
a
notice
of
appeal
and
did
not
file
until
October
7,
1994.
The
applicant
testified
that
during
the
90-day
period
prior
to
June
29,
1994
and
several
times
thereafter,
he
had
communication
concerning
filing
an
appeal
and
intended
to
do
so.
During
this
period
his
wife
was
pregnant
and
had
a
child
August
1,
1994.
During
the
same
period
the
applicant
had
received
a
notice
of
termination
of
his
employment
and
he
was
concerned
that
he
would
not
be
able
to
afford
the
cost
of
an
appeal
together
with
the
new
family
addition.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
referred
the
Court
to
subsection
167(5)
of
the
Act
mentioned
above.
Given
all
of
the
evidence
the
Court
is
satisfied
that
the
applicant,
within
the
90-day
period
limited
by
the
Act,
had
a
bona
fide
intention
to
appeal
pursuant
to
paragraph
167(5)(b)
which
reads
in
part:
(b)
the
taxpayer
demonstrates
that
(ii)
given
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
application
and
the
circumstances
of
the
case,
it
would
be
just
and
equitable
to
grant
the
application,
(iii)
the
application
was
made
as
soon
as
circumstances
permitted,
and
(iv)
there
are
reasonable
grounds
for
the
appeal.
For
these
reasons,
the
application
is
granted.
Application
granted.
Email this Content