Roland
St-Onge
(orally:
June
15,
1977):
The
appeal
of
Victor
Pulera
came
before
me
on
June
15,
1977
at
the
City
of
Toronto,
Ontario,
and
it
is
with
respect
to
a
net
worth
assessment
prepared
by
the
respondent
for
the
appellant’s
1967,
1968,
1969,
1970,
1971
and
1972
taxation
years.
In
his
notice
of
appeal
the
appellant
contended
that
he
provided
the
necessary
information
regarding
his
sources
of
funds
in
the
form
of
sworn
affidavits
and
signed
letters
of
relatives
and
other
reputable
people.
For
the
years
under
appeal,
the
appellant
operated
a
small
hairdressing
shop
and
he
claimed
that
it
would
be
impossible
for
one
person
working
by
himself
to
earn
the
income
calculated
by
the
respondent.
At
the
hearing
Mr
Giuseppe
Vettese,
a
tax
assessor,
testified
that
he
started
to
investigate
the
appellant
because
of
his
association
with
one
Mr
Basillio
who
had
failed
to
report
all
his
income.
He
decided
to
proceed
by
a
net
worth
assessment
against
the
appellant
because
the
latter
had
some
erased
amounts
in
his
cash
book.
He
used
an
appointment
book
and
an
agreed
price
list
in
order
to
discover
if
there
was
any
unreported
income
in
1972.
He
gave
us
as
an
example
the
following
figures
in
1972:
January
8,
15
persons
at
$3,
$45—reported
income
$36,
unreported
income
$9;
January
6,
8
persons
at
$3,
$24—reported
income
$25,
over-reported
$1
;
January
5,
4
persons
at
$3,
$12—reported
income
$15,
overreported
$3;
another
date,
7
persons
at
$3,
$21—reported
income
by
the
appellant
in
his
books
$40,
over-reported
$19.
When
asked
by
the
Board
what
was
the
unreported
income
in
1967
and
1968
in
order
to
justify
the
Minister’s
going
over
the
four-year
limit,
he
gave
the
following
figures
of
unreported
interest
in
1967:
Bank
of
Nova
Scotia—$18.16,
$33.68;
Royal
Bank,
account
number
750145—
$8.96
for
a
total
unreported
interest
of
$60.80.
In
1968
the
following
amounts
were
unreported:
account
number
1108—$2.67
and
$2.74;
account
number
5449—$8.74
and
$4.26
for
a
total
of
$18.41.
According
to
this
evidence,
the
Board
believes
that
the
nature
of
these
omissions
is
not
sufficient
to
justify
the
Minister’s
going
over
the
four-year
limit
on
the
ground
of
misrepresentation.
Consequently,
for
the
1967
and
1968
taxation
years,
the
appeal
is
allowed.
As
to
the
other
years,
the
assessor
has
proven
the
following
unreported
rental
income:
in
1969,
$171.37;
in
1970,
$597.08:
in
1971,
$787.58
and
in
1972,
nil.
But
as
to
the
income
from
the
hairdressing
shop,
he
failed
to
report
any
unreported
business
income
except
what
he
could
arbitrarily
reassess
on
a
net
worth
basis.
The
assessor
took
the
easiest
way
to
reassess
the
appellant
when
there
were
other
ways
to
do
it.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
he
was
able
to
discover
the
unreported
rental
income
for
the
amount
already
mentioned.
It
appears,
according
to
the
evidence
adduced,
that
the
assessor
had
only
one
idea
in
his
mind
which
was
to
reassess
the
appellant
on
a
net
worth
basis.
On
the
other
hand,
the
appellant
testified
that
he
had
reported
all
his
income
every
day
in
his
book
which
was
filed
as
an
exhibit;
that
he
had
received
some
financial
assistance
from
his
father
who
became
his
dependant.
Without
examining
the
nature
of
the
financial
assistance
given
by
the
father
to
the
appellant,
I
have
the
impression
that
the
nature
of
the
evidence
adduced
does
not
justify
the
issuing
of
a
net
worth
reassessment
for
the
following
years
1969,
1970,
1971
and
1972.
Consequently,
for
these
reasons,
the
appeal
is
allowed
in
part
and
the
matter
is
referred
back
to
the
Minister
to
reassess
the
appellant
for
the
unreported
rental
income
which
is
already
mentioned
in
my
judgment.
Appeal
allowed
in
part.
Email this Content