Date: 19980130
Docket: APP-355-97-IT
BETWEEN:
JOSEPH OLIVIERA,
Applicant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons for Order
G. Tremblay, J.T.C.C.
[1]The facts as proved before this Court are as follows:
On January 31, 1997, the applicant was assessed in respect of additional income for the 1994 and 1995 taxation years. The assessor initially asked the applicant for information by sending him a letter dated October 10, 1995, requesting a meeting with him and permission to examine his books and records.
[2]Since no reply was received, another letter to the same effect was sent to the applicant on April 4, 1996. That letter was not answered, and a third letter was therefore sent to him on June 26, 1996, to obtain information about his business, Marché aux Puces St-Zotique. No reply was received.
[3]Finally, a fourth letter was sent to him on November 8, 1996, informing him of the increase in his income:
Marché aux Puces St-Zotique
1994 1995
$30,000 $30,000
The four letters were filed as Exhibit I-1. The applicant admitted receiving them.
[4]The assessments (Exhibit I-2) were made on January 31, 1997.
[5]The applicant remembered receiving the notices of assessment. He put them aside and forgot about them. The 90-day time limit set out in subparagraph 165(1)(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter “the Act”) ended on May 1, 1997.
[6]During that entire period, the applicant did not show any intention to object. It was not until May 20, 1997, that he filed a notice of objection to the assessments with the respondent. Because the notice of objection was filed late, the respondent refused to accept it.
[7]On September 11, 1997, the applicant filed an application with the Tax Court of Canada to extend the time for filing a notice of objection.
[8]According to subparagraph 166.2(5)(b)(i) of the Act, one of the prerequisites for granting an application to extend time is the following:
166.2(5) When application to be granted.
. . .
(b) the taxpayer demonstrates that
(i) within the time otherwise limited by this Act for serving such a notice or making such a request, as the case may be, the taxpayer
(A) was unable to act or to instruct another to act in the taxpayer’s name, or
(B) had a bona fide intention to object to the assessment or make the request,
[9]Nothing in the evidence showed that such a situation or intention existed.
Conclusion
[10]For the above reasons, the application is dismissed.
“Guy Tremblay”
J.T.C.C.
Québec, Canada,
this 30th day of January 1998.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Translation certified true on this 7th day of May 1998.
Mario Lagacé, Revisor