McArthur T . C.J.:
The Respondent applies for an order dismissing the Appellant’s appeal on the ground that it does not conform with the requirements of section 169 of the Income Tax Act (Act), in that the Appellant did not serve a Notice of Objection on the Minister of National Revenue.
The Appellant considered letters she wrote to the Regional Office of Revenue Canada and to Active Bailiff Service Limited were a valid Notice of Appeal.
The Appellant was assessed $9,382.69 director’s liability under paragraph 227.1(1) of the Act. Subsection 165(1) of the Act provides for a taxpayer who objects to an assessment to serve a Notice of Objection on the "Minister". Despite the failure of the Appellant to direct her letter of November 14, 1995, to the “Minister”, I may have been disposed to accept the November 14, 1995 letter as a valid Notice of Objection had not a more fatal barrier exist.
If the November 14, 1995 letter is a valid Notice of Objection under section 165, then the Appellant must appeal 90 days after the Minister has confirmed the assessment (paragraphs 169( 1 )(«)), or (b):
[...]
(b) 90 days have elapsed after service of the notice of objection and the Minister has not notified the taxpayer that the Minister has vacated or confirmed the assessment or reassessed,
but no appeal under this section may be instituted after the expiration of 90 days from the day notice has been mailed to the taxpayer under section 165 that the Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessed.
The Minister did not confirm the assessment and 90 days elapsed after the services of the November 14, 1995 objection. In fact, the Appellant did nothing since that date, awaiting to hear from Revenue Canada. Pursuant to section 167, the Appellant could have made application to this Court for an Order extending the time within which her appeal may be instituted. This application has to be made within one year after the expiration of the time (90 days) limited by section 169 for appealing (paragraph 1 67(5)(a)).
This was not done and this Court cannot extend the time limit beyond what is contained in the Act.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for failure by the Appellant to file a Notice of Appeal as required by section 169 of the Act.
It is unfortunate that the issue could not be heard on its merits particularly in view that the Appellant’s objection appears to have merit and she did make an effort to have her objections adjudicated.
Application granted.
Email this Content