King,
JMC:—The
accused
is
charged
under
subsection
150(2)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
SC
1970-71-72,
c
63,
which
reads
as
follows:
150.
(2)
Whether
or
not
he
is
liable
to
pay
tax
under
this
Part
for
a
taxation
year
and
whether
or
not
a
return
has
been
filed
under
subsection
(1)
or
(3),
every
person
shall,
on
demand
from
the
Minister,
served
personally
or
by
registered
letter,
file
within
such
reasonable
time
as
may
be
stipulated
therein,
with
the
Minister
in
prescribed
form
and
containing
prescribed
information
a
return
of
the
income
for
the
taxation
year
designated
therein.
The
facts
disclose
that
the
demand
was
properly
made
for
the
filing
of
income
tax
returns
for
the
taxation
year
ending
August
31,
1975
and
I
am
satisfied
on
the
evidence
that
the
income
tax
department,
at
the
time
the
charge
was
laid,
had
not,
in
fact,
received
the
required
forms.
The
demand
was
made
by
registered
mail
on
May
28,
1977
but
the
charges
as
laid
allege
that
the
offences
occurred
on
September
7
and
8,
1977,
respectively.
These
dates
are
used
although
in
fact
the
demand
notice
states
in
part
"you
are
required
to
file
it
within
thirty
days
from
the
date
of
this
demand’’.
It
is,
therefore,
obvious
that
the
Department
gave
the
company
an
extension
of
the
period
of
time
prior
to
laying
the
charge.
The
accountant,
who
is
not
employed
by
the
defendant
company,
gave
evidence
that
he
had
in
fact,
by
ordinary
post,
mailed
the
required
form
to
the
proper
office
of
the
income
tax
department.
I
accept
this
witness’s
evidence
that
he,
in
fact,
did
mail
the
said
form
as
he
stated.
We,
therefore,
have
the
position
here
where
the
form
is
mailed
but
is
either
not
received
by
the
income
tax
department
or
is
misplaced
in
the
said
office.
The
question
I
must
determine
is
if
mailing
the
said
form
by
ordinary
post
is
filing
the
form
as
is
required
in
subsection
150(2).
It
is
a
rule
of
statutory
interpretation
that
other
sections
of
the
Act
may
be
referred
to
in
order
that
the
sections
of
an
Act
may
be
read
in
context.
Paragraph
150(1)(d),
in
dealing
with
citizens
making
the
required
return,
reads
as
follows:
150.
(1)
A
return
of
the
income
for
each
taxation
year
in
the
case
of
a
corporation
and
for
each
taxation
year
for
which
a
tax
is
payable
in
the
case
of
an
individual
shall,
without
notice
or
demand
therefor,
be
filed
with
the
Minister
in
prescribed
form
and
containing
prescribed
information,
(d)
in
the
case
of
any
other
person,
on
or
before
April
30,
in
the
next
year,
by
that
person
or,
if
he
is
unable
for
any
reason
to
file
the
return,
by
his
guardian,
curator,
tutor,
committee
or
other
legal
representative,
.
.
.
In
the
light
of
the
normally
accepted
practice
of
hundreds
of
thousands
of
citizens
sending
their
returns
by
ordinary
post
it
would
seem
that
the
Department
accepts
mailing
as
filing
and
therefore
there
should
be
no
different
interpretation
of
filing
in
the
case
where
a
return
is
demanded
under
subsection
150(2).
This
would
seem
to
be
a
logical
conclusion.
However,
citizens,
including
corporate
citizens
like
the
defendant,
are
required
to
file
a
return
and
it
would
logically
follow
that
the
return
would
have
to
be
received
by
the
tax
department.
The
only
provision
I
am
aware
of
for
making
a
demand
is
subsection
150(2)
and
if
on
the
basis
of
that
demand
the
income
tax
department
did
not
actually
receive
the
form
then
they
would
apparently
be
powerless.
Such
would
be
the
situation
if
it
was
held
that
the
term
"filing’’
meant
the
mailing
of
same.
It
would
seem
for
practical
purposes
that
they
allow
taxpayers
to
file
original
returns
by
ordinary
mail
because
they
in
fact
have
a
procedure
for
obtaining
the
required
form
by
making
a
demand
under
subsection
150(2).
However,
it
certainly
was
not
the
intention
of
Parliament
that
filing
should
be
interpreted
in
any
way
to
allow
an
individual
or
corporation
to
send
a
return
by
ordinary
mail
that
was
not
received
or
was
misplaced
and
thus
be
in
the
position
of
never
actually
getting
the
return.
Therefore,
it
is
my
opinion
that
the
term
“filed”
by
the
Income
Tax
Act
must
be
interpreted
as
actually
received
and
available
in
the
income
tax
office
for
review.
I
find
the
defendant
company
guilty
as
charged.
Email this Content