Cardin,
TCJ
[ORALLY]:—Mr
Paul
Nowlan,
as
a
self
employed
fisherman,
is
appealing
from
income
tax
assessment
for
the
1978
taxation
year.
In
that
year,
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
added
to
the
appellant’s
income
an
amount
of
$9,628.
That
amount
was
made
up
of
cheques
for
$3,633
and
$5,995
in
cash
received
by
the
appellant
for
the
sale
of
fish
in
1978.
The
appellant
was
not
present
in
Court
and
his
agent
did
not
offer
any
explanation
as
to
what
the
appellant
was
objecting
to
and
appealing
from.
Evidence
was
given
by
the
purchaser
of
William
Gregan
Limited,
a
fish
processing
plant.
The
witness
described
how
the
purchases
of
fish
were
made
from
the
wharf
at
Escuminac,
paid
in
cash
or,
later
in
1978,
by
cheque.
Usually
the
fishermen
did
not
want
to
sell
the
fish
other
than
for
cash.
The
witness,
who
has
been
purchasing
fish
for
his
employer
for
quite
some
time,
kept
a
daily
timer
in
which
were
reported
the
names
of
the
fishermen,
the
amount
of
fish
purchased,
the
price
paid
and
the
date
on
which
they
were
purchased.
In
“Exhbit
R2”,
it
is
recorded
in
the
daily
timer
that
Mr
Nowlan,
from
May
5
to
May
15,1978,
sold
some
$5,995
worth
of
fish
which
he
received
in
cash.
There
is
no
evidence
contradicting
that
particular
item
of
the
assessment
and
it
is
one
of
the
items
that
was
added
by
the
respondent
to
the
appellant’s
income
for
1978.
The
other
item
is
an
amount
of
$3,633
which
the
appellant
received
by
cheque
for
the
sale
of
fish
in
1978.
That
amount
was
traced
from
the
computer
print-out
which
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
was
carrying
out
in
conjunction
with
an
investigation
on
how
the
sale
and
purchase
of
fish
was
generally
being
done
in
the
Atlantic
area.
From
those
print-outs,
it
became
clear
that
some
fish
had
been
sold
and
the
appellant
had
received
cheques
in
the
amount
of
$3,633.
The
uncontradicted
evidence
clearly
established
that
an
amount
of
$9,628
in
the
sale
of
fish
was
received
in
1978
by
the
appellant
but
which
he
did
not
report
in
his
tax
return
for
1978.
It
is
most
unlikely
that
a
taxpayer
would
simply
forget
or
overlook
an
amount
of
some
$10,000
in
income,
when
his
reported
income
for
the
year
is
only
$6,000.
The
very
least
that
can
be
said
is
that
the
taxpayer
was
guilty
of
gross
negligence.
There
is
no
alternative
for
the
Court,
but
to
dismiss
the
appeal
and
to
maintain
the
penalties.
Appeal
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Monika
Geweth,
Appellant,
Email this Content