2000-1066(GST)APP
BETWEEN:
KENNETH MICHAEL SZCZERBA,
Applicant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Application heard on July 25, 2000 in Calgary, Alberta by
the Honourable Judge D. W. Beaubier
Appearances
Counsel for the Applicant: J. J. Kelly
Counsel for the Respondent: Mark Heseltine
JUDGMENT
The application for an Order extending the time within which to file a Notice of Objection to the reassessment made under the Excise Tax Act, notice of which is dated July 31, 1998 and bears number 10CT-115882094 is dismissed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 23rd day of August, 2000.
|
"D. W. Beaubier" |
J.T.C.C.
Date: 20000823
Docket: 2000-1066(GST)APP
BETWEEN:
KENNETH MICHAEL SZCZERBA,
Applicant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Beaubier, J.T.C.C.
[1] This application by the Applicant to extend the time to file an objection respecting a reassessment of GST under the Excise Tax Act (the "Act") was heard at Calgary, Alberta on July 25, 2000. At the opening of hearing the solicitor for the Respondent applied to quash the application on the basis of the particulars described in the Affidavit of Rhéal Plamondon which, without quoting the exhibits, reads:
I, Rhéal Plamondon, of the City of Calgary, in the Province of Alberta, MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:
1. I am an Officer of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency in the City of Calgary, in the Province of Alberta.
2. I have charge of the appropriate records of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and have knowledge of the practice of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
3. I have examined the records of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency relating to the application of the Applicant and have knowledge of the facts of the application.
4. A careful examination and search of the records show that by way of a Notice of Assessment dated October 30, 1996, the Minister of National Revenue assessed the Applicant net tax of $8,296.61, interest of $814.35 and penalty of $805.36 in respect of the Applicant's reporting periods ending between January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1995. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A" to this my Affidavit is a copy of the Notice of Assessment.
5. My examination of these records shows that the Applicant filed with the Minister a Notice of Objection on May 22, 1998. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "B" to this my Affidavit is a copy of the Applicant's Notice of Objection.
6. My examination of these records shows that the Minister allowed the objection in part by Notice of Decision dated July 31, 1998 and by Notice of Reassessment number 10CT-115882094 reassessed the Applicant net tax of $2,887.00, interest of $245.85 and penalty of $239.91. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "C" to this my Affidavit is a copy of the Notice of Decision and the Notice of Reassessment.
7. A careful examination and search of the records shows that the Applicant did not file a Notice of Objection with the Minister of National Revenue in respect of the said Notice of Reassessment within the time limit prescribed by section 301 of the Excise Tax Act.
6. A careful examination and search of the records shows that the Applicant did not make an application to the Minister of National Revenue to extend the time to file a Notice of Objection as prescribed by section 303 of the Excise Tax Act.
7. I make this Affidavit in support of the Respondent's application for an order dismissing the application on the grounds that no application was filed for an extension of time to file a Notice of objection as required by section 303 of the Excise Tax Act.
[2] In any event, the following dates are germaine:
1. July 31, 1998, Notice of Reassessment;
2. December 2, 1999, Application (untitled) mailed to Tax Court;
3. January 31, 2000 additional material to complete application received by Tax Court from Applicant's solicitor;
4. 14 March, 2000, Application forwarded by Tax Court to Respondent.
Thus, using the two best dates for the Applicant - July 31, 1998 for the Notice of Reassessment and December 2, 1999 for the Application, a total of more than one year and four months had expired before any application to extend the time in which to object was made to anyone.
[3] An objection must be filed within 90 days (Subsection 301(1)) and an application for an extension of time to file an objection may be filed for one year after the 90 day period (Paragraph 303(7)(a)). Similarly, an appeal must be brought within 90 days (Section 302) and an application for an extension of time to file an appeal may be applied for within one year after the 90 day period (Paragraph 305(5)(a)).
[4] As a result, the Applicant brought his application more than one month after all time limits had expired.
[5] For these reasons, the application is dismissed.
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 23rd day of August, 2000.
|
"D. W. Beaubier" |
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE NO.: 2000-1066(GST)APP
STYLE OF CAUSE: Kenneth Michael Szczerba v. The Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Calgary, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: July 25, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable D. W. Beaubier
DATE OF JUDGMENT: August 23, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr. J. J. Kelly
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Mark Heseltine
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Applicant:
Name: Mr. J. J. Kelly
Firm:
For the Respondent: Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada