His
Honour:
The
Appellant
appeals
from
an
assessment
for
his
1992
and
1993
taxation
years.
The
Minister
for
the
1992
and
1993
taxation
years
increased
net
business
income
by
the
amounts
of
$6,878
and
$6,764
respectively,
and
the
Appellant
at
the
outset
of
the
case
indicated
he
takes
no
issue
with
the
inclusion
of
those
amounts.
The
Minister
further
went
on
to
assess
tip
income
in
the
amounts
of
$2,683
and
$2,344
respectively
for
the
taxation
years
1992
and
1993.
The
position
of
the
Appellant
is
that
the
amount
added
in
by
the
Minister
by
way
of
tip
income
was
10
per
cent,
and
his
preferred
figure
is
6
or
7
per
cent.
The
Minister
further
went
on
to
assess
gross
negligence
penalties
in
the
amounts
of
$540.87
and.
$324.80
respectively
with
respect
to
1992
and
1993,
and
did
so
on
the
basis
that
the
penalties
were
properly
assessed
in
accordance
with
163(2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
There
is
no
reason
to
disturb
the
Minister’s
assessment
as
it
pertains
to
the
inclusion
of
tip
income
and
the
amounts
set
forth,
because
there
is
no
other
option
before
me
giving
me
reliable
evidence
so
that
I
could
prefer
another
version.
With
respect
to
the
penalties
imposed,
having
regard
to
all
of
the
circumstances
there
is
substantial
amount
of
evidence
indicating
that
the
Appellant
operated
under
circumstances
which
would
be
tantamount
to
wilful
blindness,
which
can
equate
knowledge.
But
in
any
event,
without
having
to
specifically
make
a
finding
in
that
regard,
the
circumstances
of
the
nonreporting
of
the
business
income
and
the
failure
to
report
the
tip
income,
in
my
view
constituted
clearly
gross
negligence
within
the
meaning
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
and
the
burden
of
proof
has
in
fact
been
discharged
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue.
Having
regard
accordingly
then
to
the
evidence
before
me,
the
appeal
of
the
Appellant
with
regard
to
the
1992
and
1993
taxation
years
is
hereby
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content