St-Onge,
TCJ
[ORALLY]:—The
appeal
of
Mrs
Paula
Goldhagen
was
heard
on
January
9,
1984,
at
the
city
of
Toronto,
Ontario.
The
issue
is
whether
her
husband
has
transferred
assets
to
her
while
he
was
indebted
to
Her
Majesty
the
Queen
for
income
tax
under
the
Income
Tax
Act,
SC
1970-71-72,
c
63,
as
amended.
The
facts
alleged
by
the
respondent
at
paragraphs
2
to
7
inclusive
of
the
reply
to
the
notice
of
appeal
read
as
follows:
2.
At
a
time
when
Marcel
Goldhagen
was
indebted
to
Her
Majesty
the
Queen
for
Income
Tax
under
the
Income
Tax
Act,
RSC
1952,
Chapter
148,
as
amended,
arising
out
of
his
1962,
1971,
1972,
1973
and
1975
taxation
years,
he
assigned
his
interest
in
a
mortgage
to
the
Appellant.
This
transfer
was
effected
by
an
Indenture
dated
December
20,
1977,
and
registered
in
the
Land
Registry
Division
of
Halton
(No
20)
on
March
13,
1978.
3.
At
the
time
that
the
Indenture
referred
to
in
paragraph
2
herein
was
registered
in
the
Land
Registry
Division
of
Halton
(No
20)
Marcel
Goldhagen’s
interest
as
a
mortgagee
in
the
said
Mortgage
was
$20,375.32
including
interest
whereas
Marcel
Goldhagen’s
interest
as
mortgagee
on
December
20,
1977,
was
$20,025.03.
4.
As
of
June
24,
1980,
Marcel
Goldhagen
was
indebted
to
Her
Majesty
the
Queen
under
the
Income
Tax
Act,
supra,
in
the
amount
of
$46,712.11
comprised
of
the
following
sums:
|
Penalty
&
|
|
|
Tax
|
Interest
|
Law
Cost
|
|
$29,697.59
|
$16,879.72
|
$134,80
|
5.
By
Notice
of
Assessment
dated
July
17,
1980,
the
Respondent
assessed
the
Appellant
tax
in
the
amount
of
$20,375.32
stating
that
the
Assessment
was
raised
under
the
authority
of
Section
160(2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
and
was
in
respect
of
a
transfer
within
the
meaning
of
Section
160(1)
of
the
said
Act.
In
so
assessing
the
Appellant
for
tax,
the
Respondent
found
or
assumed
the
facts
hereinbefore
pleaded.
6.
By
Notice
of
Objection
dated
October
9,
1980,
the
Appellant
objected
to
the
Notice
of
Assessment
dated
July
17,
1980,
inter
alia,
stating:
“I
hereby
object
to
the
above
Assessment
on
grounds
that
at
no
time
have
there
been
any
assets,
whether
real
estate
or
shares
or
any
other
kind,
transferred
to
me.”
7.
By
Notification
of
Confirmation
by
the
Minister
dated
October
19,
1981,
the
Respondent
confirmed
the
assessment
herein.
At
the
hearing,
the
appellant
has
admitted
paragraphs
2
to
7
inclusive
of
the
reply
to
the
notice
of
appeal.
It
is
only
a
question
of
establishing
the
value
of
the
mortgage
when
it
was
transferred
in
1977.
The
appellant
contended
that
the
equity
of
$17,000
mentioned
in
Exhibit
R-1
is
not
the
market
value
of
the
mortgage
in
1977.
Three
years
later,
the
amount
received
for
this
mortgage
was
only
$10,000.
The
only
figure
I
have
to
establish
the
value
of
that
mortgage
in
1977,
is
Exhibit
R-l.
The
onus
was
on
the
appellant
to
prove
that
the
respondent
was
wrong
but
she
failed
to
do
so.
She
did
not
introduce
any
evidence
to
prove
a
lesser
value
than
$20,308.94.
Consequently,
for
this
reason
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Email this Content