BETWEEN:
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on May 10, 2006.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on May 10, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LINDEN J.A.
Docket: A-206-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 173
CORAM: LINDENJ.A.
NOËL J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
SYED MANSOOR ALI NAQVI
Appellant
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on May 10, 2006)
[1] This is an appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada, dated April 13, 2005 (reported as [2005] 3 C.T.C. 2403, 2005 TCC 355), which upheld in part the respondent's reassessment of the appellant's reported income for the 2000 taxation year.
[2] After a hearing under the informal procedure, the Tax Court Judge concluded that the respondent had correctly included additional income in the amount of $21,289.00 in the appellant's income for the taxation year at issue. The appellant appeals from this finding.
[3] An additional sum of $6,425.00 which was acknowledged by the respondent to be properly deductible on account of a business loan in the taxation year, is not in dispute before this Court.
[4] The additional income amount at issue was determined by the respondent mainly through the source and application of funds, according to the assumptions quoted by the Tax Court Judge at paragraph 3 of his reasons.
[5] The appellant asserted that the $21,289.00 should not be included in his income, as it was received from relatives in Pakistan, and was not income obtained through his stated sources of income in Canada.
[6] The Tax Court Judge rejected the appellant's contention, noting that "[b]ased upon credibility, the Appellant failed to refute the assumptions remaining in question insofar as the $21,289.00 is concerned" (paragraph 4).
[7] It is well established that, in an appeal from a reassessment by the Minister of National Revenue, the appellant has the onus of disproving the Minister's assumptions in the assessment: Hickman Motors Ltd. v. Canada, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 336 at paragraph 92; Johnston v. Canada, [1948] S.C.R. 486.
[8] In the case at bar, it is evident that the Tax Court Judge was not persuaded that the appellant had discharged this onus. The Tax Court Judge's determination in this regard was clearly based upon an assessment of credibility and a weighing of oral and documentary evidence given by the taxpayer and Mr. Noory Ali. These matters are to be reviewed by an appellate court upon the deferential standard of palpable and overriding error: Housen v. Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235 at paragraph 10; Schwartz v. Canada, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 254 at paragraph 32. In this case, the Tax Court Judge's findings are supported by the evidence, and the appellant has not demonstrated any palpable or overriding error.
[9] This appeal should, therefore, be dismissed with costs.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-206-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: SYEB MANSOOR ALI NAQVI v.
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LINDENJ.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: LINDEN J.A.
APPEARANCES:
| FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
| FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Toronto, Ontario
|
FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|