Taylor,
TCJ:—This
is
an
application
in
Toronto,
Ontario,
on
September
19,
1983,
for
an
extension
of
time
within
which
to
file
notices
of
objection
against
assessments
for
the
years
1977
and
1979.
The
assessments
at
issue
were
dated
November
5,
1981;
this
application
was
dated
January
11,
1983.
The
explanation
for
the
delay
provided
by
the
accountants
for
Mr
Hunt
reads
as
follows:
We
are
the
tax
consultants
and
bookkeepers
for
Mr
Leonard
Hunt
of
Mactier,
Ontario.
The
1977
and
1979
tax
returns
for
our
client
were
audited
and
reassessment
notices
mailed
to
him
November
5,
1981.
As
a
result
of
this
audit
he
is
asked
to
pay
an
additional
$11,100.59
in
taxes.
Mr
Hunt,
not
being
aware
of
the
usual
procedure,
wrote
to
the
Toronto
District
Tax
Office
February
10,
1982,
advising
them
to
contact
his
wife
with
details
on
the
documents
required
for
a
Notice
of
Objection.
Unfortunately,
the
letter
was
mailed
7
days
after
the
90
day
deadline.
On
February
16,
1982,
he
received
a
notice
from
them
advising
him
that
his
letter
had
been
received
and
would
be
answered
shortly.
The
letter
was
never
answered.
He
phoned
them
sometime
in
October
1982
and
was
then
informed
that
because
a
“Notice
of
Objection”
form
was
not
filed
within
the
90
day
period,
his
file
could
not
be
reopened.
At
this
time
Mr
Hunt
contacted
our
office
and
asked
for
our
assistance.
We
wrote
to
the
Toronto
District
tax
office
explaining
the
situation
November
9,
1982.
They
phoned
back
and
advised
us
to
write
to
your
Department.
There
is
documentation
to
support
the
items
disallowed
at
the
time
of
the
audit
and,
therefore,
we
request
that
this
file
be
reopened
and
reviewed.
Enclosed
please
find
photocopies
of
all
correspondence
mentioned
in
this
letter.
In
opposing
the
application,
the
Minister
relied
on:
The
time
limited
by
subsection
165(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
expired
on
Tuesday,
3
February,
1982,
and
therefore
the
Respondent
submits
that
the
Applicant
has
not
demonstrated
that
the
requirement
of
subparagraph
167(5)(c)(i)
has
been
satisfied.
The
Respondent
submits
that
the
precondition
enunciated
in
subparagraph
167(5)(c)(ii)
has
not
been
met.
Dealing
with
subparagraph
167(5)(c)(i)
(noted
above),
as
I
understand
it,
the
only
real
“circumstance”
proposed
by
the
applicant
which
inhibited
his
filing
the
notice
of
objection
within
the
90-day
period
was
that
of
“Mr
Hunt,
not
being
aware
of
the
usual
procedure”
(see
letter
above
from
accountants).
I
am
not
aware
of
judicial
support
for
a
proposition
that
ignorance
of
the
law
is
sufficient
reason
to
grant
such
an
application
in
these
circumstances.
The
application
is
denied.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content