Gordon v. The Queen

Gordon v. The Queen
Court (s) Database
Tax Court of Canada Judgments
Date
2009-03-03
Neutral citation
2009 TCC 271
File numbers
2008-2972(IT)G
Judges and Taxing Officers
David W. Beaubier
Subjects
Income Tax Act
Decision Content
Citation: 2009TCC271
2008-2972(IT)G
BETWEEN:
WAYNE GORDON,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
CERTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPT OF
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Let the attached certified transcript of the Reasons for Judgment delivered orally from the Bench at
Regina ,
Saskatchewan
, on March 3, 2009, be filed.
“D.W. Beaubier”
Beaubier D.J.
Signed in
Edmonton ,
Alberta
on June 3rd, 2009.
Page 1
TAX COURT OF CANADA
2008-2972(IT)G
B E T W E E N:
WAYNE GORDON
APPELLANT
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
RESPONDENT
-------------------
Held before His Honourable Justice D.W. Beaubier at
the Hotel Saskatchewan at
Regina ,
Saskatchewan
,
On Tuesday, March 3, 2009
REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT
APPEARANCES:
G. Carson (Carson & Co.)
Melfort ,
Saskatchewan
Appearing for the Appellant
B. Sittler (Justice
Canada
)
J. Barber Student-at-Law
Saskatoon ,
Saskatchewan
Appearing for the Respondent
Velma Szatkowski Registrar
--------------------------------------
ROYAL REPORTING SERVICES LIMITED
300 - 2010 - 11th Avenue
Regina
,
Saskatchewan
S4P 0J3
Page 2
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[1] This motion by the Respondent to quash the Appellant's Notice of Appeal for his 2003 taxation year was heard at
Regina ,
Saskatchewan
on March 3, 2009.
[2] The basis for the motion is that there was no reassessment from which to object or appeal on a timely basis.
[3] The evidence is that the Appellant filed his original income tax return for 2003 on a timely basis, and it was assessed by a Notice of Assessment dated
May 6th, 2004.
[4] After that, the following occurred:
(1) April 16, 2007, the Appellant filed an amended T1 General for 2003 requesting an adjustment for 2003.
(2) January 7th, 2008, the Minister denied that requested (David Gill, Exhibit B).
(3) February 15th, 2008, there was a second denial by the Minister.
(4) May 23, 2008, the Appellant filed a Notice of Objection to these denials, which referred to a Notice of Assessment for 2003 dated March 3, 2008. That alleged Notice of Assessment is not in evidence.
Page 3
(5) June 4, 2008, the Minister advised the Appellant that the May 23rd, 2008 Notice of Objection was not accepted because it was too late for the Notice of Assessment dated May 6th, 2004.
(6) August 27th, 2008, the Appellant filed this Notice of Appeal for the 2003 year again referring to a Notice of Reassessment dated March 3, 2008; then to the Notice of Assessment dated May 23, 2008; and then to a denial dated June 4, 2008.
[5] In his Affidavit respecting the motion dated 18 February 2009, Mr. Gordon describes a judgment of this Court Number 2004-1889 (IT)G dated September 17th, 2008, and states that he is entitled to a consequential reassessment which has not yet been made for his 2003 taxation year. He further states that his 2004-5-6 years have been reassessed as a result of the judgment and have been objected to.
[6] Mr. Gordon's Affidavit of 18 February 2009 could have contained the reassessment for 2003, which his Notice of Appeal alleges occurred on March 3, 2008. It does not. The Respondent's affiant, Mr. David Gill, stated on 28 November 2008 that there was only a Notice of Assessment of May 6, 2004, and in effect, nothing more for 2003. His evidence is accepted as correct based on the materials before this Court in respect to this Notice of Appeal for 2003.
[7] In his argument, Mr. Gordon's counsel referred to the Minister's letter dated February 29, 2008, (Mr. Gordon, Exhibit B) as, in effect, the reassessment
in appeal dated March 3, but that letter merely states "We are proceeding with a reassessment of the above-mentioned returns as indicated in our proposal letter
Page 4
dated January 7, 2008, sent to your representatives." That does not constitute a reassessment for 2003. The letter refers to the 2003-2006 years inclusive. In fact, there is no evidence that a reassessment has been done for 2003 although apparently some of those other years have been reassessed.
[8] Therefore, in this Court's view, there is no reassessment for 2003 in evidence which may be appealed. In particular, there is no reassessment dated March 3, 2008, or any document which can be construed as such a reassessment.
[9] For this reason, this Notice of Appeal is quashed. However, because of the letter of the Minister of February 29, 2008, there is no order as to costs.
(End of Reasons)
Page 5
OFFICIAL QUEEN'S
BENCH COURT
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE:
I,
KIMBERLEY
KRESKI, CSR,
Official Queen's Bench Court
Reporter for the
Province of
Saskatchewan
, hereby
certify that the foregoing pages contain a true and
correct transcription of my shorthand notes taken
herein to the best of my knowledge, skill and ability.
KIMBERLEY
KRESKI, CSR
OFFICIAL QUEEN'S
BENCH COURT
REPORTER