Nimis v. The Queen

Nimis v. The Queen
Court (s) Database
Tax Court of Canada Judgments
Date
2007-01-15
Neutral citation
2007 TCC 10
File numbers
2006-737(IT)I
Judges and Taxing Officers
Campbell J. Miller
Subjects
Income Tax Act
Decision Content
Citation: 2007TCC10
Date: 20070115
Docket: 2006-737(IT)I
BETWEEN:
GARY J. NIMIS,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
For the Appellant: The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent: Leslie Akst
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered orally from the bench on
November 24, 2006, at Edmonton, Alberta.)
Miller J.
[1] It will come as no surprise, given the conversation that we have just had, that as a judge interpreting the laws, I cannot and I would not, negotiate the law. If it was a matter of different facts, or there was some wriggle room in the interpretation of the laws, then negotiation might be in order. But it is clear to me, Mr. Nimis, the cost of replacing furniture does not fall within the definition of "moving expenses," and that is something I simply cannot negotiate. It would be improper for me to accede to your request and do so. It would throw the laws of our country into complete chaos if judges started changing what Parliament had written.
[2] Having said that, I could not agree with you more that this situation should not have happened. The sad truth is that it did happen, and as any businessman like you would presume, there should be some compensation or some route to follow to get compensation. Regrettably, as you will have gathered from my conversation with Ms. Akst, that route is not in this Court. This Court deals only with assessments, tax assessments, and the correctness of those assessments. And in this case, the correct interpretation is that it is not a deductible expense. So it is with some regret I dismiss your appeal.
[3] The doctrine of estoppel, as Ms. Akst has pointed out, does not apply in this case with respect to the government, and frankly, sir, in your situation, that is regrettable. If the assessment creates some interest, there is what is called a fairness package. Certainly, I cannot unilaterally say you are not going to have to pay interest, but what I can do is recommend to Ms. Akst's client that consideration be given to waiving any interest charges and certainly any penalties in a situation like this.
[4] The appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 15th day of January, 2007.
"Campbell J. Miller"
Miller J.
CITATION: 2007TCC10
COURT FILE NO.: 2006-737(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: Gary J. Nimis and Her Majesty The Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: November 24, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT BY: The Honourable Justice Campbell J. Miller
DATE OF JUDGMENT: December 1, 2006
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent:
Leslie Akst
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name: N/A
Firm: N/A
For the Respondent: John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada