Date: 20031127
Docket: A-421-02
Citation: 2003 FCA 460
NOËL J.A.
EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
870 HOLDINGS LTD.
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 27, 2003.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 27, 2003.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A.
Date: 20031127
Docket: A-421-02
Citation: 2003 FCA 460
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
NOËL J.A.
EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
870 HOLDINGS LTD.
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia on November 27, 2003)
[1] In order to succeed, it was incumbent upon the appellant to show that the letter of June 12, 1998, assuming that it was sent in good time, did constitute a valid Notice of Objection. This burden has not been met.
[2] The statutory requirements for the filing of a valid Notice of Objection are minimal but must nevertheless be complied with. It must be addressed to the Chief of Appeal of the relevant district (subsection 165(2)) and subsection 165(1) merely requires that the objection, in addition to being in writing, set out the reasons for the objection and the relevant facts.
[3] The letter of June 12, 1998, does nothing of the sort. It is framed as a response to Revenue Canada's earlier inquiry regarding the loss claimed on the return, and requests more time to provide the requested information. The letter is addressed to Ms. Lund of the Corporation Returns Processing division, the official who had made the earlier inquiry. No matter how this letter is read, it can not be said to object to the assessment in issue.
[4] The position of the appellant to the effect that the subsequent exchanges over a three-year period suggest that the Minister had accepted the letter of June 12, 1998 as a valid Objection is without foundation.
[5] A taxpayer may ask that a given taxation year be reassessed at any time prior to the expiration of the assessment period, and the Minister may respond by issuing the requested reassessment if satisfied that it ought to be issued. There is no requirement that a Notice of Objection be filed in order for this process to take place.
[6] The record reveals that this was the process which was engaged in this instance. The Minister sought information regarding the loss claimed by the appellant and denied it only because the requested information was not forthcoming. By its letter of June 12, 1998, the appellant advised the Minister that the missing information would be provided and subsequently requested that its 1996 taxation year be reassessed accordingly. The Minister entertained this request subject to the requested justification being provided. That is the context in which exchanges took place over the three-year period.
[7] The appellant's allegation of abuse of process is based on the contention that the letter of June 12, 1998 could be viewed as a valid objection, and that the Minister by her actions led the appellant to believe that it had been accepted as such.
[8] As indicated, the letter of June 12 does no more than indicate that a response would be given to Ms. Lund's request for information and when regard is had to the Minister's power to reassess, it cannot be seriously argued that the Minister's willingness to keep the file open pending this response was an acknowledgment that a valid objection had been filed.
[9] The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
(Sgd.) "Marc Noël"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-421-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: 870 HOLDINGS LTD. v. THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, B.C.
DATE OF HEARING: November 27, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: Strayer, JA: Noël, JA: Evans, JA
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Noël, JA
APPEARANCES:
|
Mr. David A.G. Birnie |
FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
Ms. Susan Wong |
FOR THE RESPONDENT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Vancouver |
FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
FOR THE RESPONDENT |