D
E
Taylor:—This
application
under
section
167
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
for
an
order
extending
the
time
within
which
notices
of
objection
may
be
served
in
respect
of
the
1975,1976
and
1978
taxation
years
was
heard
in
the
City
of
Winnipeg
on
Fegruary
11,1980.
Counsel
for
the
taxpayer
pointed
out
that
in
his
opinion
the
matter
at
issue
for
those
years
(the
deduction
of
spousal
maintenance
payments)
was
exactly
the
same
as
the
matter
at
issue
for
the
year
1977
for
which
an
earlier
similar
application
had
been
granted.
The
Minister
of
National
Revenue
subsequently
allowed
the
amount
claimed
for
the
year
1977.
In
view
of
this,
there
appeared
to
be
no
necessity
in
the
opinion
of
counsel
for
filing
any
notice
of
objection
for
the
years
1975
and
1976,
particularly
since
the
Minister
appeared
to
accumulate
into
one
request
for
payment
in
February
1979
all
the
arrears
including
1975
and
1976.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
filed
with
the
Board
a
statement
containing
the
following
comments:
The
Minister
of
National
Revenue,
the
respondent,
states
that
he
will
not
oppose
the
said
application
with
respect
to
the
1978
taxation
year
but
that
he
will
oppose
the
said
application
with
respect
to
the
1975
and
1976
taxation
years
for
the
following
reason,
inter
alia:
1.
That
with
respect
to
the
application
respecting
the
1975
and
1976
taxation
years,
no
order
extending
time
should
be
made
because
the
application
offends
the
provisions
of
paragraph
167(5)(a)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
RSC
1952,
c
148
as
amended
by
section
1
of
c
63,
RSC
1970-71-72,
the
application
having
not
been
made
withing
one
year
after
the
expiration
of
the
time
otherwise
limited
by
the
Income
Tax
Act
for
objecting
to
the
reassessment
in
respect
of
which
the
application
is
made.
An
affidavit
was
also
filed
by
the
Minister
showing
that
the
date
for
the
1975
reassessment
was
March
3,
1978,
and
February
17,
1978
for
the
1976
reassessment.
Certain
relevant
correspondence
covering
the
period
September
18,
1978
through
September
18,
1979
between
counsel
for
the
taxpayer,
Revenue
Canada
and
the
Tax
Review
Board
was
filed
on
common
consent.
I
would
conclude
from
it
that
while
counsel
filed
a
notice
of
objection
on
August
7,
1978
against
a
1977
assessment
dated
May
9,
1978
(dealt
with
as
noted
earlier),
no
such
notice
of
objection
was
filed
against
the
1975
or
1976
assessments
dated
March
3/78
and
February
17/78
respectively.
It
is
clear
from
the
letter
from
Mr
Clay
to
the
Board
dated
September
18,1978,
that
he
was
under
certain
misunderstandings
regarding
the
respective
roles
of
Revenue
Canada
and
the
Tax
Review
Board,
but
that
he
was
attempting
to
regularize
the
entire
matter,
including
the
years
1975
and
1976.
At
that
date
(September
18,
1978),
the
applicant
was
well
within
the
statutory
time
limit
(one
year
and
90
days)
providing
the
Board
with
authority
to
act
under
section
167
of
the
Act.
Whatever
uncertainty
might
have
existed
for
Mr
Clay
on
September
18,1978
was
clarified
on
December
15,1978
(still
well
within
the
time
limit)
by
a
letter
from
Revenue
Canada
to
him
which
reads
in
part:
As
we
previously
discussed,
there
is
no
need
at
this
time
to
apply
for
a
time
extension
in
1977
as
firstly,
maintenance
payments
were
not
disallowed
in
that
year,
and
secondly,
your
original
objection
for
1977
was
filed
on
time,
in
any
case,
thereby
negating
the
need
for
a
time
extension.
What
is
required
before
we
can
deal
with
the
1975
and
1976
returns
(which
are
the
returns
on
which
the
maintenance
payments
were
disallowed)
are
proper
applications
for
the
time
extensions
filed
in
accordance
with
subsection
167(3)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
This
section
requires
that
the
application
be
filed
(by
way
of
registered
mail)
in
triplicate
along
with
three
(3)
copies
of
the
notice
of
objection
for
each
year.
Pursuant
to
subsection
167(2)
the
application
should
set
out
reasons
why
it
was
not
possible
to
serve
the
notice
of
objection
within
the
90
day
limit.
This
application
must
be
made
within
the
one
year
limit
referred
to
in
subsection
167(5).
We
apologize
if
there
was
any
misunderstanding
relayed
to
you
on
the
requirements
of
proper
method
for
filing
the
application.
For
your
convenience,
we
are
enclosing
copies
of
notice
of
objection
forms.
A
reply
from
Mr
Clay
to
Revenue
Canada
dated
February
20,
1979
(still
again
within
the
time
limit)
comments
in
this
way:
It
would
appear
from
Revenue
Canada
allowing
Mr
Joseph
his
deductions
for
the
1977
tax
year,
that
he
should
be
clearly
allowed
the
same
deductions
for
the
1975
and
1976
taxation
years
with
which
the
writer
understands
you
are
concerned.
This
being
the
case,
it
would
seem
that
there
would
be
no
tax
arrears
whatsoever
owing
by
Mr
Joseph.
Further
application
for
extension
of
time
with
respect
to
the
1975
and
1976
taxation
years
would
appear
to
be
a
waste
of
time.
In
my
view,
that
sums
up
the
matter
and
is
the
reason
the
application
presently
before
the
Board
must
be
opposed
by
the
Minister.
The
application
is
allowed
for
the
year
1978
and
is
dismissed
for
the
years
1975
and
1976.
Application
allowed
in
part.
Email this Content