Pinto v. Canada (Attorney General)

Pinto v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2005-05-04
Neutral citation
2005 FCA 162
File numbers
A-201-04
Decision Content
Date: 20050504
Docket: A-201-04
Citation: 2005 FCA 162
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
HAIM PINTO
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on May 4, 2005.
Judgment delivered at Montréal, Quebec, on May 4, 2005.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: PELLETIER J.A.
Date: 20050504
Docket: A-201-04
Citation: 2005 FCA 162
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
HAIM PINTO
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered at the hearing at Montréal, Quebec, May 4, 2005)
PELLETIER J.A.
[1] We all agree that there is no reason to intervene and that the appeal must be dismissed.
[2] As a result of an audit, the appellant was reassessed according to the net worth method. The Minister was forced to apply this procedure because it was impossible to establish the appellant’s income and expenses accurately from his accounts, the absence of which is all the more surprising since the appellant operates his own accounting business.
[3] The argument before the Tax Court of Canada focused on the auditor’s findings concerning the appellant’s income and expenses. In order to resolve those issues, the Court had to draw findings of fact from the evidence available and from its assessment of the credibility of the appellant and witnesses. These findings cannot be challenged by this Court in the absence of a palpable and overriding error, which is not the case here. See Housen v. Nikolaisen, [2002] S.C.R. 235.
[4] With regard to the reassessment of the appellant beyond the normal period of time, we are agreed that, even if the prescription had not been waived, the Tax Court of Canada had ample reason to find that the appellant had misrepresented the facts through negligence, carelessness or fraud. We need only note that, while the appellant reported business income of less than $9,000 per annum, he contributed $8,000 a year to the support of his two daughters, while paying life insurance premiums of about $3,100 a year. The Tax Court of Canada judge did not err in finding the appellant either negligent or careless in providing information.
[5] The appeal will be dismissed with costs, with the exception that, on the respondent’s confession of judgment with regard to two minor corrections, the appellant will be entitled to a reduction of the amount from $3,500 to $2,000 for item [TRANSLATION] “lotteries” for the 1997 taxation year and a depreciation in the amount of $791 for office equipment for the same year.
“Denis Pelletier” J.A.
Certified true translation
Michael Palles
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-201-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: HAIM PINTO
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: May 4, 2005
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
DELIVERED AT THE HEARING BY: PELLETIER J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Haim Pinto
On his own behalf
FOR THE APPELLANT
Bernard Fontaine
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE RESPONDENT