Date: 19961016
Docket: 95-4067(IT)I
BETWEEN:
EARL GEORGE MARSHALL,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered orally from the bench
at Halifax, Nova Scotia on October 16, 1996)
Bell, J.T.C.C.
[1] I think this. I think you feel
quite aggrieved by the fact that the tax department did not tell
you that one of these should be filed for each year. But be that
as it may the tax department can't be telling everybody what
they have to file. They just wouldn't have enough time to do
anything else. Now, in our country we have a self-assessing
system, where a person is supposed to find out what he should do
and what he should submit to the tax department, particularly in
support of a claim that he is making. If you're in business
and you claim an expense -- for example, rent of an office -- you
may reasonably be expected to be required to put in a receipt to
support that claim. Now, I understand that you do feel as you do,
but there's an obligation on the taxpayer in filing his own
return to file that which supports claims he made. And it is
clear in this legislation, under Section 118.3, that the
individual must file for a taxation year with the Minister --
that means each
taxation year -- the certificate described in paragraph a.2, which is the certificate that one is required to get from a doctor. Now, on that basis alone I could dismiss your appeal, and I guess if I didn't -- you see, because this is a rule book and I don't make the rules. The rules are here for me. I'm a judge. I'm here to determine whether you have complied with these rules or not. And I use my best resources to come to a fair and correct conclusion when I look at these things and when I hear you people.
[2] And I, on that basis alone, could dismiss your appeal and if I didn't I have a very high degree of certainty that the Respondent, the department, would appeal my decision. You'd be at this again and the odds are, again, very high, that you would lose. And I don't want to put you through that and I see no need for me to make that kind of decision. Now, apart from that I think you would have little chance, if any, of succeeding in -- I think you'd have no chance in succeeding, from the evidence I've heard, in 1992 and 1993. And I think you would have some difficulty with 1991 because of the very strict requirements that are set forth in Section 118.4, which we've looked at. The very strict requirement for determining the ability to perform daily activities is markedly restricted.
[3] So, as much as I sympathize with your condition and your suffering -- I've got to tell you that I'm delighted that you're feeling better and I hope that continues. I'm sorry to see people suffer. I don't like that. It's not easy for you. It's not easy for any of us to conduct these cases. We don't like to see people not have as good a time as they can have, which includes the honouring of a claim for disability which you have -- the type of disability with which you have been afflicted. But I can't, according to these rules, Mr. Marshall, allow your appeal. So, for the reasons that I have stated, and I'm in substantial agreement with what Mr. Vézina has said, I must dismiss your appeal. I thank you for coming and I hope you continue to improve and feel better.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada this 22nd day of June, 1998.
|
"R.D. Bell" |
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE NO.: 95-4067(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: Earl George Marshall v.
Her Majesty The Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE OF HEARING: October 16, 1996
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable R.D. Bell
DATE OF JUDGMENT: June 22, 1998
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent: Patrick Vézina
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the Respondent: George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada