BETWEEN:
and
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on June 21, 2006.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on June 21, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A.
Docket: A-443-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 238
CORAM: NOËL J.A.
NADON J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
WILLIAM P. KARDA
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
NADON J.A.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on June 21, 2006)
[1] This is an appeal from a judgment of Miller J. of the Tax Court of Canada, 2005 TCC 564, September 6, 2005, allowing in part the appellant's appeals from reassessments of tax made under the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, 5th Suppl., c. 1 (the Act), for his 1996, 1997 and 1998 taxation years.
[2] The appellant makes two submissions in support of his appeal. With regard to the first one, we see no merit in his argument that the Notice of Reassessment of June 2, 2000, is invalid because the purpose thereof was to prevent the expiry of the three-year limitation. In our view, having requested additional information from the appellant and not having received that information, and having requested a waiver from the appellant which the appellant refused to give, the Minister was clearly entitled to issue a reassessment to protect his rights prior to the expiry of the three-year period. We therefore see no error on the Judge's part in finding that the reassessment was valid.
[3] With respect to the appellant's second submission, which pertains to the denial of the interest expenses in the amounts of $15,480, $15,952 and $15,367 on the SoUse account, the Judge held that the appellant had failed to demonstrate which parts of the borrowed sums were used to earn income. The appellant argues that in so concluding, the Judge made an overriding and palpable error in ignoring evidence in the form of the SoUse Schedule of Outstanding Loans and in the form of a letter from Revenue Canada, dated February 1994, confirming that the loan had been used to earn income with respect to a prior year.
[4] After consideration of the evidence and, in particular, of the appellant's oral testimony, we are satisfied that the Judge did not make an overriding and palpable error. In the end, what the appellant is asking us is to reassess the evidence in a light more favourable to his position. Failing a finding that the Judge made an overriding and palpable error, we simply cannot do what the appellant invites us to do.
[5] As a result, there is no basis for us to intervene and the appeal will accordingly be dismissed with costs.
"M. Nadon"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-443-05
(APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MILLER, TAX COURT OF CANADA, DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 2005)
STYLE OF CAUSE: WILLIAM P. KARDA v. HMQ
DATE OF HEARING: June 21, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BY: (NOËL, NADON, SEXTON JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH: NADON J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
Leigh Somerville Taylor
|
For the Appellant |
|
|
For the Respondent
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, ON
|
For the Appellant
|
|
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
For the Respondent |