D
E
Taylor:—This
is
an
application
by
Leo
Lesage
for
an
extension
of
time
within
which
to
file
a
notice
of
objection
against
income
tax
assessments
for
the
years
1975,
1976
and
1977.
The
hearing
was
held
in
Winnipeg,
Manitoba,
on
November
16,
1981,
and
both
the
applicant
and
Mr
Champagne
as
agent
recited
the
facts
and
information
relevant
to
the
application.
The
notice
of
objection
was
dated
January
30,
1981
and
allegedly
referred
to
assessments
dated
January
5,
1981.
Obviously,
if
that
is
the
case,
no
application
is
required,
since
it
would
have
been
filed
within
the
statutory
90-day
period.
However,
when
called
upon
by
the
Board
to
do
so,
neither
the
applicant
nor
Mr
Champagne
was
able
to
provide
a
copy
of
any
assessment
dated
January
5,
1981,
but
it
was
Mr
Champagne’s
recollection
that
there
had
been
one.
The
Minister’s
officials
were
equally
unable
to
provide
a
copy
or
any
information
in
support
of
such
an
assessment
and
it
was
their
view
that
none
existed.
While
I
am
inclined
to
agree
with
the
Minister
that
there
is
no
January
5,
1981
reassessment,
it
remains
slightly
in
doubt.
A
copy
of
a
letter
dated
November
5,
1980
from
the
applicant
to
the
Tax
Review
Board
made
reference
to
a
requirement
for
an
extension
of
time
even
then,
and
there
was
evidence
in
the
Minister’s
files
of
assessments
dated
March
7,
1980
with
regard
to
the
three
taxation
years
in
issue.
These
assessments
which
were
shown
to
the
Board
are
based
upon
a
net
worth
examination
of
the
taxpayer’s
affairs,
and
are
of
very
substantial
magnitude,
assessing
added
income
of
some
$50,000
or
more,
which
the
taxpayer
disputed.
It
was
acknowledged
by
counsel
for
the
Minister
that
indeed
there
might
be
some
bases
for
dispute
in
the
elements
of
these
assessments,
and
the
limited
information
contained
therein
would
indicate
that
the
taxpayer’s
complaint
could
have
merit.
Mr
Champagne
stated
that
while
he
had
very
limited
knowledge
of
accounting
and
income
tax
matters,
he
had
tried
to
assist
his
friend
Mr
Lesage,
the
applicant,
in
the
matter,
and
had
carried
on
discussions
subsequent
to
the
March
7,
1980
assessments
with
officials
of
National
Revenue.
However,
he
was
completely
unaware
of
any
requirement
for
a
formal
notice
of
objection
to
be
filed.
When
his
efforts
had
been
unsuccessful
up
until
November
1980,
he
then
learned
from
Revenue
Canada
officials
that
it
was
too
late
to
file
a
formal
notice
of
objection.
There
is
certainly
no
evidence
that
either
in
such
discussions,
or
by
correspondence,
the
need
for
a
notice
of
objection
was
ever
brought
directly
to
his
attention
before
that
time.
The
provision
regarding
the
90-day
period
which
is
to
be
found
on
the
back
of
each
assessment
and
reassessment
notice
was
read
to
Mr
Champagne
and
the
applicant.
The
Minister’s
position
was
that
not
only
had
the
applicant
failed
to
provide
any
reason
why
it
was
“not
possible”
to
file
the
notice
of
objection
within
the
90
days
provided
by
Statute,
there
was
no
evidence
that
the
current
application
before
the
Board
had
been
made
as
soon
thereafter
as
it
was
possible
to
do
so.
Both
the
applicant
and
Mr
Champagne
noted
that
they
had
suffered
serious
and
disabling
illnesses
during
the
taxation
years
in
question
and
continued
to
suffer
therefrom
during
the
year
1980,
the
time
which
appeared
critical
to
the
matter
before
the
Board.
Counsel
for
the
Minister
cited
the
following
jurisprudence:
Savary
Beach
Lands
Ltd.
et
al
v
MNR,
[1972]
CTC
2608;
72
DTC
1497;
';
Antonio
Arnone
v
MNR,
79
DTC
22;
James
Wayne
Elliott
v
MNR,
[1978]
CTC
2919;
78
DTC
1643;
Tic
Toe
Tours
Ltd.
v
MNR,
[1981]
CTC
2776;
81
DTC
660;
Robert
Newton
et
le
Ministre
du
revenu
national
(APP-2590).
The
basis
upon
which
the
applicant
may
look
to
the
Board
for
relief
is
very
scant
indeed.
Very
little
has
been
provided
which
would
show
that
it
was
not
possible
for
the
appropriate
notice
of
objection
to
have
been
filed
within
the
required
90-day
period
as
far
as
the
March
7,
1980
reassessment
is
concerned
which,
it
would
appear,
is
the
only
matter
with
which
the
Board
can
deal.
I
am
satisfied,
however,
that
neither
the
applicant
nor
Mr
Champagne
was
at
all
aware
that
there
was
a
statutory
90-day
limitation
on
filing
a
notice
of
objection,
and
I
am
also
satisfied
that
they
were
in
very
poor
health
for
at
least
some
of
the
relevant
period.
It
would
be
simple
and
direct
to
say
that
the
applicant’s
ignorance
of
his
obligation,
and
his
failure
to
avail
himself
of
competent
income
tax
advice
should
serve
to
deny
him
the
right
of
appeal.
Nevertheless,
in
this
instance
I
would
suggest
that
the
matter
might
be
viewed
within
the
general
context
of
the
decision
of
the
Board
in
Logan
v
MNR,
cited
at
[1978]
CTC
2893;
78
DTC
1647;
rather
than
within
the
framework
of
the
jurisprudence
cited
by
the
Minister,
particularly
at
this
time
since
the
recent
decision
in
Tic
Toe
Tours
Ltd.
(supra)
is
presently
under
appeal
to
the
Federal
Court
of
Canada.
I
also
note
for
the
record
two
factors
which
have
struck
me
in
dealing
with
this
application
and
which
I
readily
admit
had
not
previously
been
so
prominent
in
my
thinking.
First,
the
reference
to
the
90-day
limitation
is
on
the
back
of
the
relevant
assessment
notice.
Obviously,
the
front
of
the
assessment
notice
would
be
most
vital
to
the
taxpayer,
and
in
particular
the
amount
at
issue.
It
is
unlikely
the
taxpayer
would
automatically
look
on
the
back
to
find
the
warning
of
the
danger
to
his
right
of
appeal.
Secondly,
the
wording
in
the
warning,
if
seen
on
the
back
of
the
assessment
notice,
can
best
be
described
as
mild
and
innocuous.
Its
inclusion
in
a
section
headed
merely
“Inquiries”
and
its
use
of
the
word
“may”
without
more
forceful
explanation
would
not
really
enlighten
or
alarm
a
taxpayer,
particularly
one
as
unlearned
and
unaided
as
was
the
situation
in
this
case.
I
appreciate
that
the
use
of
the
word
“may”
on
the
reverse
side
of
the
assessment
notice
accurately
reflects
that
the
same
word
is
used
in
the
construction
of
the
relevant
section
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
—
subsection
165(1)
thereof.
Nevertheless,
in
defence
of
the
tax-paying
public,
it
should
be
noted
that
the
discreet
and
unobtrusive
form
of
this
warning
on
the
assessment
notice
may
not
be
in
keeping
with
the
usual
and
laudable
efforts
of
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
to
make
available
to
taxpayers
the
widest
possible
range
and
detail
of
information
which
affects
them,
particularly
if
it
affects
them
adversely.
It
appears
to
me
that
nothing
which
comes
before
the
Board
is
more
critical
than
the
prospect
of
terminating
the
right
of
a
taxpayer
to
appeal
from
an
assessment.
Even
recognizing
that,
the
record
of
decisions
noted
above
shows
that
the
Board
has
been
meticulous
in
requiring
compliance
with
the
Act
where
circumstances
warrant
it,
and
in
rejecting
applications
for
time
extension
wherever
the
circumstances
indicated
nothing
of
greater
magnitude
than
simple
neglect
of
fulfilling
responsibility
by
the
taxpayer
or
his
agent.
As
I
view
this
application,
however,
such
a
denial
of
the
right
to
file
an
objection
and,
if
necessary,
an
appeal,
would
be
inappropriate.
The
taxpayer
must
subscribe
to
the
basic
rule
that
ignorance
of
the
law
is
no
excuse
(see
Newton
(supra)),
and
he
could
have
taken
heed
of
the
standard
warning
noted
earlier
on
the
back
of
the
assessment
notice.
He
could
also
have
availed
himself
of
more
competent
assistance.
Nevertheless,
in
this
situation
the
Board
is
prepared
to
accept
that
the
acknowledged
failure
in
these
areas,
taken
in
the
context
of
the
applicant’s
serious
illness,
serve
to
fulfill
the
onus
on
Mr
Lesage.
To
whatever
degree,
shades
of
black,
grey
or
white
might
be
seen
in
the
exercise
of
the
Board’s
jurisdiction
under
section
167
of
the
Act,
this
case
is
very
marginal
and
leaves
me
with
no
great
sense
of
assurance.
It
should
be
viewed
therefore
with
discretion
and
cauation,
and
not
as
a
determination
for
general
principle
or
application
in
these
affairs.
It
may
be
that
the
results
of
the
appeal
on
Tic
Toe
Tours
Ltd.
(supra)
noted
earlier
will
provide
clearer
guidance
and
direction
for
the
Board
in
these
matters.
The
application
is
granted.
Application
granted.
Email this Content