Kempo,
J.T.C.C.
(orally):—These
informal
procedure
appeals
concern
the
1989
and
1990
taxation
years
of
Gloria
Lindstrom.
Paragraphs
2-5
of
her
notice
of
appeal
dated
September
9,
1993
raised
the
following
matters:
The
Finance
Department
in
Ottawa
(613)
992-7870
advised
me
that
if
interest
rate
is
compounded,
then
the
rate
of
compounding
and
the
annual
rate
of
interest
must
be
shown
on
all
documents
sent
to
clients.
If
the
compounding
rate
and
the
annual
rate
of
interest
are
not
shown
on
these
documents,
then
the
yearly
rate
of
interest
that
can
be
charged
is
five
per
cent;
Whereas
Revenue
Canada,
Taxation
demands
an
income
tax
return
from
every
Canadian
adult;
Whereas
Revenue
Canada,
Taxation
literature
and/or
forms
do
not
disclose
what
constitutes
a
penalty
charge,
nor
does
it
disclose
what
constitutes
an
interest
charge,
nor
does
it
disclose
what
constitutes
an
arrears
interest
charge;
Whereas
Revenue
Canada,
Taxation
literature
and/or
forms
do
not
disclose
the
rate
of
interest
that
it
charges,
nor
the
compounding
annual
rate
of
interest;
Whereas
Revenue
Canada,
Taxation,
because
of
the
way
it
has
chosen
to
deal
with
these
income
tax
returns,
is
unable
to
provide
taxpayers
with
a
speedy
review
of
their
returns;
Therefore,
Revenue
Canada,
Taxation
should
be
allowed
to
only
charge
five
per
cent
rate
of
interest
and
should
not
be
allowed
to
compound
this
interest
charge.
Therefore,
all
penalties
and
all
causes
for
interest
charges
should
be
clearly
stated
in
the
available
literature.
Therefore
let
it
be
realized
that
interest
cannot
be
billed
retroactively;
the
taxpayer
should
not
be
penalized
just
because
Revenue
Canada,
Taxation
cannot
provide
a
timely
and
thorough
review
of
the
required
income
tax
return.
The
reply
to
notice
of
appeal
is
lengthy
and
sets
out
in
schedule
format
the
interest
calculation
arrivede
at
pursuant
to
the
statutory
provisions
set
out
in
paragraph
6
of
the
reply.
The
essence
of
Ms.
Lindstrom’s
position
concerned
the
economic
impact
arising
out
of
the
compounding
interest
and
the
fact
this
compounding
was
not
revealed
in
the
tax
guide
used
and
relied
upon
by
ordinary
taxpayers.
Parliament
of
Canada
has
legislated
by
means
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71
-72,
c.
63)
(the
"Act")
that
interest
is
to
be
paid
and
that
it
may
be
compounded
in
accordance
with
regulations
passed
pursuant
to
that
legislation.
The
Canada
Interest
Act,
section
3,
does
not
apply
because
the
interest
payable
is
prescribed
by
law,
i.e.
the
Income
Tax
Act
of
Canada
which,
as
I
have
already
said,
is
statutory
law
passed
by
Parliament
of
Canada.
The
courts,
Revenue
Canada,
and
all
taxpayers
are
bound
by
this
legislation.
Tax
guides
are
no
more
than
guides;
they
have
no
force
of
law
in
and
of
themselves.
Ms.
Lindstrom's
analysis
and
plea
were
sincere
and
rationally
presented.
She
succintly
expressed
the
frustrations
of
many
Canadian
taxpayers
who
have
come
face
to
face
with
a
rather
complex
fiscal
system.
I
am
sorry
to
say
that
this
Court
cannot
help
her,
but
the
law
of
Parliament
cannot
be
ignored
nor
can
it
be
rewritten
within
this
judicial
forum.
Ms.
Lindstrom
has
raised
the
fairness
package
legislation
appearing
as
subsection
220(3.1)
of
the
Act
added
by
S.C.
1991,
c.
49.
Apparently
the
officials
acting
for
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
have
declined
to
exercise
the
authority
thereunder
in
Ms.
Lindstrom's
favour.
This
Court
is
unable
to
overturn
that
decision.
See:
Towers
v.
Canada,
File
No.
706-93
(Federal
Court-Trial
Division)
dated
November
17,
1993,
a
decision
of
Justice
Noël,
and
see
also
Ford
(Estate)
v.
M.N.R.,
93
D.T.C.
5499
(F.C.T.D.).
Copies
of
these
decisions
have
been
provided
to
Ms.
Lindstrom.
In
conclusion,
there
being
no
error
in
fact
or
in
law
shown
on
the
part
of
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue,
the
appeals
are
dismissed.
Appeals
dismissed.
Email this Content