Search - considered

Justice Teitelbaum ordered that the taxpayer present his case first, as the onus was on him to prove the invalidity of the reassessments, which the Court considered prima facie valid under subsection 152(8) of the Act. ...

In preparation of the income statement it is considered proper accounting practice to match against revenue earned in any fiscal year the expenses incurred to earn that revenue. ...

The three departmental officers involved, namely the appeals officer, the section chief of the Appeals Division and the chief of appeals testified by way of affidavit that they considered the following facts: (a) the request made by the applicant and the reasons therefore [sic]; (b) in filing its income tax return for the 1990 taxation year, the applicant did not include income in the amount of $38,803.03 in its computation of total income; (c) the applicant does not dispute its tax liability; (d) the “self-assessing” system of taxation puts the onus on the taxpayer to properly report income; (e) there are a number of elective returns that can be filed in the year of death; (f) the guidelines established in Information Circular No. 92-2 and Internal Directive ARD-92-01 dated April 16, 1992 were not met in these circumstances. ...

It is my considered opinion that the facts of the case fall within the ambit of clause 54(c)(ii)(B) of the Act. ...

         [9]      The Crown now appeals from that decision on the grounds that the credits issued by BASF to jobbers cannot be considered as "valid reductions" of sale price for the purpose of section 41 of the Excise Tax Act. ...

The following factors will be considered when determining whether or not the Department will cancel or waive interest or penalties:                           (a) whether or not the taxpayer or employer has a history of compliance with tax obligations;                           (b) whether or not the taxpayer or employer has knowingly allowed a balance to exist upon which arrears interest has accrued;                           (c) whether or not the taxpayer or employer has exercised a reasonable amount of care and has not been negligent or careless in conducting their affairs under the self-assessment system;                           (d) whether or not the taxpayer or employer has acted quickly to remedy any delay or omission ...

Golbeck (September 20, 1990), A-613-90 and A-614-90, [1990] 2 C.T.C. 438, the Federal Court of Appeal stated the requirement for obtaining such a jeopardized recovery order as follows: That question was not whether such an application by the Minister should only be considered after having been served on the taxpayer so as to give the taxpayer an opportunity to make representations. ...

Canada (Minister of National Revenue) (2001), 213 F.T.R. 85. [18]            Here, the ministerial delegate considered the fact the applicant's annual gross income from 1996 onward was in excess of $30,000, that he was able to meet his monthly expenses without being in a deficit position, that he had nominal debt and substantial equity, and on the basis of those considerations, determined that the applicant had not established financial hardship. [19]            I am unable to conclude that his conclusion was not reasonably open to him, nor am I able to conclude that the decision was not exercised in good faith, that it was made in consideration of extraneous factors, or that there was any breach of procedural fairness. [20]            While I am sympathetic to the applicant who has since his teenage years paid his taxes in a timely manner until such time as he encountered this specific problem, in view of the standard of review, it is not open to me to interfere with the exercise of the ministerial delegate's discretion merely because I might have been inclined to exercise it differently had I been charged with the responsibility. [21]            Therefore, there is no basis upon which to warrant the Court's intervention, and the application for judicial review will be dismissed. ...

Khanna then sought judicial review of that decision with respect to the interest accrued from April 1998 to March 2001. [4]         On March 15, 2002, this Court (on consent) ordered the Minister to give a fresh and independent consideration to the request for interest relief because the person who had considered the initial fairness application had also made the original decision to deny Mr. ...

The Memorandum identifies factors that should be considered in determining whether to exercise the Minister's discretion: whether the person has a satisfactory history of voluntary compliance and whether there is evidence that the person exercised reasonable care and diligence and was not careless or negligent in the conduct of his affairs. [12]      On July 8, 1996, the applicant applied to the Fairness Committee asking that the $7,211.79 in penalty and interest be waived because he could not afford to pay and because he had made honest mistakes. ...