D
E
Taylor:[Translation]—
This
decision
is
delivered
in
response
to
an
application
to
the
Tax
Review
Board
for
an
extension
of
the
time
limit
for
objecting
to
the
tax
assessments
for
1972,
1973
and
1974.
The
application
is
dated
March
13,
1980
and
reads
as
follows:
1.
I
received
notices
of
reassessment
numbered
73469-70-71-72-73-74
and
dated
June
8,
1979.
2.
The
prescribed
time
limit
for
serving
notices
of
objection
to
these
assessments
expired
on
September
6,
1979.
3.
The
notice
of
objection
was
signed
by
me
at
the
office
of
my
authorized
agent,
Proulx,
Boyer,
Charbonneau
&
Associates,
on
September
6,
1979.
4.
As
a
result
of
a
clerical
error
by
an
employee
of
the
authorized
agent,
the
said
notice
of
objection
was
mailed
on
September
10,
1979,
that
is
after
the
weekend
of
September
7-9,
1979.
5.
My
authorized
agent
was
not
informed
that
the
said
notice
of
objection
was
rejected
until
October
22,
1979,
when
a
letter
was
received
from
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
(Appeals
Division).
6.
The
time
between
October
22,
1979
and
the
presentation
of
this
application
was
used
to
carry
out
a
complete
re-examination
of
the
said
file
and
to
evaluate
the
appropriateness
of
the
application
in
view
of
all
the
circumstances.
7.
The
present
application
is
based,
moreover,
on
serious
reasons
for
objection
which
are
more
fully
explained
in
the
enclosed
notices
of
objection.
Notwithstanding
the
complications
recounted
above,
the
questions
which
the
Board
must
ask
itself
are
very
simple:
is
there
a
good
reason
for
the
delay
between
June
8,
1979
and
March
13,
1980
and
was
the
application
presented
as
soon
as
the
circumstances
permitted?
In
James
Wayne
Elliott
v
MNR,
[1978]
CTC
2919;
78
DTC
1643,
the
following
comment
appears
on
2921
and
1664
respectively:
In
the
instant
case,
the
Board
is
asked
to
accept
that
the
employment
pattern
and
personal
dislocations
of
the
taxpayer
and
his
lawyer
prevented
appropriate
action
being
taken
during
a
90-day
period,
and
apparently
continued
to
inhibit
it
for
a
further
six
months.
It
would
seem
to
me
that
the
interpretation
placed
upon
the
circumstances
by
counsel
for
the
Minister
is
more
plausible
—
that
the
matter
did
not
receive
the
attention
it
warranted
(whether
of
the
taxpayer
or
his
advisers),
and
that
no
adequate
explanation
of
the
delay
has
been
presented.
The
issue
involved
here
is
the
use
of
a
simple
administrative
section
of
the
Act,
and
cannot
be
regarded
as
similar
to
the
application
of
penalty
provisions
under
section
163
of
the
Act
in
which
the
Courts
have
shown
reluctance
to
burden
the
taxpayer
with
the
results
of
alleged
acts
of
omission
or
commission
by
his
agent.
Furthermore,
in
Antonio
Arnone
v
MNR,
79
DTC
22,
the
Board
noted
the
following
on
23:
I
believe
that
it
would
be
doing
a
wrong
service
to
professionals
to
give
them
the
idea
that
so
long
as
they
advise
the
Board
that
there
was
some
mistake
in
their
operation
that
the
application
would
automatically
be
granted.
I
think
that
that
would
be
a
wrong
policy
to
follow.
It
is
certainly
not
the
one
which
has
been
followed
by
my
colleagues
on
this
board
nor
in
the
Federal
Court.
I
see
no
major
distinction
between
the
case
at
issue
and
the
cases
cited
above.
The
application
is
therefore
dismissed.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content