Teskey,
T.C.J.:—The
appellant
appeals
its
assessment
dated
July
19,
1988
wherein
the
Minister
assessed
a
penalty
pursuant
to
subsection
227(9)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
"Act")
for
late
payment
of
employee
deductions.
Facts
The
appellant
is
similar
to
many
small
businesses
across
this
country.
It
has
one
office
employee
who
is
responsible
to
answer
the
phone,
pick-up
the
mail,
act
as
receptionist,
keep
all
accounting
records,
prepare
all
cheques,
do
the
banking
and
all
secretarial
work.
That
is,
the
one
employee
does
all
the
office
work
required.
This
employee
prepares:
(a)
the
payroll
cheques
each
week,
(b)
the
Receiver
General
cheques
to
cover
the
payroll
deductions,
and
(c)
mails
the
cheque
to
the
Receiver
General
two
or
three
days
before
it
is
due.
The
June
30,
1988
deductions
were
mailed
to
Revenue
Canada
on
Wednesday,
July
6
and
received
by
Revenue
Canada
July
15
(5
days
late).
The
office
employee
attended
at
the
appellant's
bank
every
Thursday.
Analysis
Section
153
of
the
Act
is
the
section
that
requires
employers
to
deduct
income
tax
from
employees.
Section
108
of
the
Income
Tax
Regulations
is
the
section
that
determines
when
the
deductions
are
to
be
remitted.
The
operative
words
of
this
section
are
“shall
be
remitted".
Subsection
248(7)
of
the
Act
deals
with
the
receipt
of
things
mailed
and
reads:
(7)
For
the
purposes
of
this
Act,
any
thing
sent
by
first
class
mail
or
its
equivalent
shall
be
deemed
to
have
been
received
by
the
person
to
whom
it
was
sent
on
the
day
it
was
mailed
except
that
the
remittance
of
an
amount
deducted
or
withheld
as
required
by
this
Act
or
a
regulation
made
under
this
Act,
shall
be
deemed
to
have
been
remitted
on
the
day
it
was
received
by
the
Receiver
General.
The
statute
does
not
tell
an
employer
how
to
pay
or
remit
the
required
deductions.
In
this
case
the
employer
chose
to
remit
by
mail.
It
could
have
paid
the
amount
at
its
bank
without
charge.
The
company
chose
to
use
the
mail
notwithstanding
that
its
office
employee
attended
at
its
bank
each
Thursday.
The
payment
could
have
been
paid
at
the
bank
on
either
Thursday,
June
30
or
Thursday,
July
7
without
interruption
of
the
employee's
routine
and
by
doing
so
it
would
have
been
paid
on
time.
Once
an
employer
chooses
to
remit
by
mail,
subsection
248(7)
deems
the
remittance
to
be
made
on
the
date
Revenue
Canada
receives
the
remittance.
Thus
it
is
not
a
valid
defence
to
claim
that
Canada
Post
took
an
inordinate
time
to
deliver
the
remittance
or
that
Revenue
Canada
lost
the
remittance.
Due
diligence
and
usual
time
of
delivery
does
not
assist
an
employer
for
being
late
with
its
remittances.
Subsection
227(9)
is
the
provision
that
provides
for
a
10
per
cent
penalty
together
with
interest
on
a
late
remittance.
The
cumulative
effort
of
all
these
provisions
is
that
once
the
Minister
had
made
an
assessment
of
a
penalty
for
a
late
payment
under
subsection
227(9)
a
defence
of
due
diligence
or
that
Canada
Post
took
an
abnormal
length
of
time
to
deliver
the
remittance
are
not
valid
defences.
Decision
For
the
above
reasons,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content