A
W
Prociuk
(orally:
January
16,
1978):—This
is
an
application
on
behalf
of
a
taxpayer,
Philip
Gow,
of
Bowden,
Alberta,
pursuant
to
section
167
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
It
has
now
become
apparent
to
the
Board,
after
hearing
counsel
for
the
respondent,
that
this
is
an
application
to
extend
the
time
within
which
the
applicant
may
institute
his
appeal.
The
matter
deals
with
the
taxation
year
1971
and
this
again
came
up
for
the
first
time
today
via
the
documents
filed
by
counsel
for
the
respondent.
There
was
a
previous
application
to
extend
the
time
for
the
same
taxpayer
within
which
to
file
his
notice
of
objection.
The
respondent,
through
his
counsel,
did
not
oppose
that
application
and
the
order
extending
the
time
was
granted
on
November
30,
1976.
I
should
say
at
this
time
that
the
notice
of
reassessment
is
dated
April
9,
1976.
The
application
to
extend
the
time
within
which
to
file
the
notice
of
objection
is
dated
November
30,
1976
which
apparently
was
filed.
Notification
of
confirmation
of
the
assessment
by
the
respondent
for
the
said
taxation
year
is
dated
March
25,
1977.
The
date
of
that
confirmation,
as
I
said,
is
March
25,
and
included
with
that
confirmation
was
also
a
letter
from
the
respondent’s
Regional
Appeals
Branch,
advising
the
applicant,
the
taxpayer
Gow,
that
if
he
wished
to
appeal
to
the
Tax
Review
Board
or
to
the
Federal
Court,
he
had
to
do
it
within
90
days
from
the
date
of
that
confirmation.
Nothing
appears
to
have
been
done
until
September
22,
1977,
when
the
taxpayer’s
agent,
Mr
R
W
Streatch,
wrote
the
following
letter
to
the
Registrar
of
the
Tax
Review
Board:
The
tax
payer
[sic]
disagrees
with
the
disallowance
of
investments
in
Limited
partnership.
The
tax
payer
can
not
establish
his
liability
until
agreement
has
been
reached
between
the
general
partner
and
the
Department
of
National
Revenue.
This
is
the
only
material
that
came
before
the
Board.
Section
167,
particularly
subsection
(3),
reads
as
follows:
167.
(3)
An
application
under
subsection
(1)
shall
be
made
by
filing
with
the
Registrar
of
the
Tax
Review
Board
or
by
sending
by
registered
mail
addressed
to
him
at
Ottawa
3
copies
of
the
application
accompanied
by
3
copies
of
a
notice
of
objection
or
notice
of
appeal,
as
the
case
may
be.
Subsection
167(5)
reads
as
follows:
167.
(5)
No
order
shall
be
made
under
subsection
(1)
or
(4)
(a)
unless
the
application
to
extend
the
time
for
objecting
or
appealing
is
made
within
one
year
after
the
expiration
of
the
time
otherwise
limited
by
this
Act
for
objecting
to
or
appealing
from
the
assessment
in
respect
of
which
the
application
is
made;
(b)
if
the
Board
or
Court
has
previously
made
an
order
extending
the
time
for
objecting
to
or
appealing
from
the
assessment;
and
(c)
unless
the
Board
or
Court
is
satisfied
that,
/
(i)
but
for
the
circumstances
mentioned
in:
subsection-
(1)
or
(4),
as
the
case
may
be,
an
objection
or
appeal
would
have
been
made
or
taken
within
the
time
otherwise
limited
by
this
Act
for
so
doing,
(ii)
the
application
was
brought
as
soon
as
circumstances
permitted
it
to
be
brought,
and
(iii)
there
are
reasonable
grounds
for
objecting
to
or
appealing
from
the
assessment.
I
feel
I
am
bound
to
look
at
paragraph
(c)
of
subsection
(5)
very
closely.
There
are
no
circumstances
indicated
in
the
letter
or
in
the
application,
if
one
could
call
it
that,
why
the
appeal
was
not
instituted
in
time.
The
applicant
must
be
taken
to
have
known
that
there
are
time
limitations
since
he
already
once
applied
for
an
order
extending
the
time
within
which.
to
file
his
notice
of
objection.
He
would.
be
aware
that
there
are
time
limitations
and
he
was
so
advised
by
the
Regional
Appeals
Director.
There
is
no
evidence
that
the
application
was
brought
as
soon
as
circumstances
permitted
it
to
be
brought
and
that
there
are
reasonable
grounds
for
appealing
from
the
reassessment.
To
say
that
there
is
a
dispute
between
a
third
party,
who
was
indirectly
connected
with
this
taxpayer,
and
the
Minister
and
that.
the
dispute
has
not
been
resolved,
to
my
mind
is
not
a
reason
why
the
appeal
could
not
have
been
instituted
in
time.
All
it
required
was
a
simple
letter
to
the
Tax
Review
Board,
or
perhaps
a
more
formal
one
to
the
Federal
Court,
stating
that
the
taxpayer
appeals.
from
the
assessments
on
the
following
grounds
or
on
the
following
ground.
That
would
have
been
sufficient.
But
nothing:
was
done
except
this
scanty
little
letter
written
by
Mr
Streatch
saying
that
he
disagrees.
I
do
not
think
that
in
the
circumstances
of
the
case,
as
I
see
it,
the
Board
should
in
its
discretion
allow
an
application
of
this
kind:
to
stand.
As
I
just
stated
earlier,
there
had
been
one
application
before
and
the
taxpayer
was
put
on
his
guard.
He
must
be
taken
to
be
aware
of
the
provisions
of
the
Act
outlining
what
is
required
in
situations
of
this
kind.
The
Board
takes
the
position
that
the
requirements
of
subsection
(5)
of
section
167
have
not
been
met
at
all.
by
the
applicant
and
the
application
accordingly
is
dismissed.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content