Brule,
T.C.J.:—These
are
appeals
against
an
income
tax
assessment
respecting
Ilona
Sogi
for
her
1280
taxation
year
and
reassessments
respecting
John
Sogi
for
his
1977,
1978,
1979
and
1980
taxation
years.
In
the
case
of
Mrs.
Sogi
the
Minister
relied
upon
the
provisions
of
section
160
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
while
in
the
case
of
Mr.
Sogi
the
reassessments
were
made
under
the
provisions
of
subsection
152(7)
of
the
Act.
The
appeals
were
heard
together
and
involved
the
validity
of
the
"net
worth"
statements
prepared
by
the
Minister.
The
appellant,
John
Sogi,
offered
explanations
as
to
the
discrepancies
he
felt
were
contained
in
the
statements.
His
evidence
at
times
was
somewhat
less
than
convincing
and
his
memory
was
not
always
in
accord
with
some
signed
documentation.
In
the
case
of
Lisienia
Chernenkoff
v.
M.N.R.,
[1949]
C.T.C.
369;
49
D.T.C.
680
the
Court
stressed
that
the
onus
lies
on
the
appellant
to
show
that
the
assessed
income
was
incorrect
and
that
proper
records
be
produced.
At
page
375
(D.T.C.
683)
of
the
report
the
Court
said:
In
the
absence
of
records,
the
alternative
course
open
to
the
appellant
was
to
prove
that
even
on
a
proper
and
complete
“net
worth"
basis
the
assessments
were
wrong.
In
most
respects
Mr.
Sogi
failed
to
do
this.
The
various
exhibits
presented
to
the
Court
and
signed
by
him
were
not
consistent,
nor
was
his
reasoning
for
the
variations.
For
example,
at
times
he
declared
a
secret
hoard
of
jewellery
while
not
so
at
other
times.
His
recall
as
to
the
valuation
and
accumulation
of
this
jewellery
was
too
vague
to
rebut
the
statements
submitted
by
the
Minister.
The
Minister
did
reduce
the
amounts
originally
assessed
in
1983,
and
after
further
investigation
they
were
reduced
again
by
reassessments
in
1986.
After
hearing
the
various
witnesses
and
reviewing
the
evidence
presented
to
the
Court
I
have
concluded
that
there
were
two
areas
where
the
Minister's
assessments
are
not
valid.
One
is
the
value
of
the
gold
allegedly
held
by
Mr.
Sogi.
The
Minister
based
his
value
of
this
on
the
statement
of
a
third
party
who
was
not
present
to
give
evidence
and
be
cross-examined.
Evidence
showed
that
Mr.
Sogi
only
held
one
kilo
of
gold,
which
according
to
the
comparative
statement
had
a
value
of
$9,381.14.
The
figure
of
$31,991.77
for
the
years
1978
to
1980
is
not
correct
and
should
have
shown
$9,381.14
throughout
that
period.
As
to
the
property
on
Wellington
Crescent
being
transferred
from
Mr.
Sogi
to
his
wife
I
do
not
find
this
to
be
so.
Evidence
showed
that
the
purchase
of
the
house
in
Ilona
Sogi's
name
was
achieved
by
moneys
being
provided
from
the
sale
of
a
property
owned
by
Mrs.
Sogi's
mother
with
the
balance
being
a
mortgage,
albeit
from
funds
provided
by
a
friend
of
Mr.
Sogi.
Proper
documentation
supported
the
registration
of
the
house
in
Mrs.
Sogi's
name
and
the
mortgage
signed
by
her.
There
never
was
produced
any
evidence
to
show
an
interest
in
the
property
by
Mr.
Sogi
to
transfer
and
therefore
section
160
of
the
Act
is
not
applicable.
The
result
then
is
that
the
appeal
of
Mr.
Sogi
is
allowed
on
the
basis
that
the
net
worth
assessment
is
reduced
by
the
sum
of
$126,033.81
in
the
1980
taxation
year,
the
value
of
the
alleged
house
transfer,
a
further
reduction
in
the
amount
of
$22,610.63
is
to
be
made
in
each
of
the
1978,
1979
and
1980
taxation
years,
respecting
the
gold
on
hand,
and
in
all
other
respects
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
llona
Sogi's
appeal
is
allowed
with
costs.
Both
appeals
will
be
returned
to
the
Minister
for
reconsideration
and
reassessment.
Mr.
Sogi's
appeal
allowed
in
part.
Mrs.
Sogi's
appeal
allowed.
Email this Content