Couture,
C.J.T.C.
[Translation]:—This
is
an
application
to
the
Court
to
extend
the
90-day
period
for
filing
a
notice
of
objection,
as
provided
for
in
subsection
165(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
(the
Act),
in
respect
of
the
1981,
1982,
1983
and
1984
taxation
years.
It
was
heard
at
Montréal
on
June
11,
1986.
The
grounds
relied
on
by
the
taxpayer
in
support
of
his
application
and
the
facts
shown
by
the
evidence
are
as
follows:
The
taxpayer
has
been
employed
by
the
Royal
Canadian
Mounted
Police
since
1974.
In
addition
to
his
earnings
during
the
years
in
question,
he
also
received
an
annual
dress
allowance
amounting
to
$572
to
cover
the
cost
of
certain
clothing
that
he
had
to
wear
in
the
performance
of
his
duties.
According
to
the
taxpayer,
they
had
received
a
directive
from
the
R.C.M.P.,
which
was
in
force
at
the
time,
stating
that
this
amount
was
taxable
under
the
Act
and,
therefore,
that
it
should
be
included
as
income
in
the
tax
returns
of
those
receiving
such
an
allowance.
He
testified
that
if
he
had
not
followed
that
directive,
he
would
have
been
exposed
to
disciplinary
action.
On
February
14,
1984,
Rip,
T.C.J.
of
this
Court
handed
down
a
decision
in
John
E.
Shoveller
v.
M.N.R.,
[1984]
C.T.C.
2207,
84
D.T.C.
1195,
in
which
it
was
decided
that
a
clothing
allowance
paid
to
an
officer
of
the
Niagara
police
force
to
purchase
clothes
used
in
the
performance
of
his
duties
was
not
a
taxable
benefit
in
his
hands.
This
judgment
was
appealed
to
the
Federal
Court
of
Canada
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue,
but
no
decision
has
yet
been
rendered.
Apparently
the
reasons
for
judgement
in
this
case
came
to
the
attention
of
the
R.C.M.P.
early
in
December
1985.
Accordingly,
the
R.C.M.P.
with-
drew
its
directive
and
on
January
31,
1986,
the
taxpayer
filed
an
application
to
extend
the
90-day
period
provided
for
in
the
Act
to
enable
him
to
file
a
notice
of
objection
to
the
assessments
in
respect
of
the
1981,
1982,
1983
and
1984
taxation
years.
Under
the
provisions
of
section
167
of
the
Act,
the
Court
has
a
discretion
to
make
an
order
upon
application
extending
the
time
within
which
a
taxpayer
may
file
a
notice
of
objection
or
a
notice
of
appeal,
but
this
discretion
is
subject
to
the
restrictions
set
out
in
subsection
167(5)
of
the
Act.
In
order
for
the
Court
to
make
the
order
provided
for
in
subsection
167(1),
it
is
essential
to
observe
all
the
conditions
and
requirements
provided
for
in
subsection
(5).
The
evidence
showed
that
the
assessments
issued
against
the
taxpayer
were
dated
April
6,
1982
for
the
1981
taxation
year,
June
24,
1983
for
the
1982
taxation
year,
May
29,
1984
for
the
1983
taxation
year
and
May
16,
1985
for
the
1984
taxation
year,
and
the
application
for
an
extension,
although
it
was
dated
January
31,
1986,
was
received
at
the
Registry
of
this
Court
on
February
10,
1986.
In
view
of
this
evidence,
it
is
clear
that,
under
paragraph
167(5)(a),
the
Court
has
no
jurisdiction
to
make
the
order
requested
in
the
application
in
respect
of
1981,
1982
and
1983,
since
the
application
was
filed
after
one
year
from
the
time
prescribed
in
subsection
165(1)
for
filing
a
notice
of
objection
to
the
assessments.
With
regard
to
the
1984
taxation
year,
the
application
for
an
extension
of
time
to
file
an
objection
to
the
assessment
was
made
within
the
time
prescribed
by
subsection
167(5)
of
the
Act.
In
view
of
the
circumstances
that
prevented
the
taxpayer
from
exercising
his
free
choice
to
object
or
not
to
that
assessment,
the
Court
feels
that
it
is
just
and
equitable
to
make
an
order
extending
the
time
for
filing
an
objection
in
respect
of
the
1984
taxation
year.
Application
allowed
in
part.
Email this Content