97-2395(GST)I
BETWEEN:
PRAVEEN SOOD,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Motion decided on written submissions of the parties, by
the Honourable Judge D.G.H. Bowman
Representatives
For the Appellant: The Appellant herself
Counsel for the Respondent: Anne-Marie Lévesque
ORDER
Upon motion by the respondent for a correction to the judgment dated February 12, 1999;
And upon reading the written submissions of the parties;
The motion is denied.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 30th day of April 1999.
|
"D.G.H.Bowman" |
J.T.C.C.
Date: 19990430
Docket: 97-2395(GST)I
BETWEEN:
PRAVEEN SOOD,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
Bowman, J.T.C.C.
[1] In this motion the respondent asks that I correct my judgment with respect to the appellant's GST reporting period for the 1995 taxation year.
[2] The point raised is a somewhat novel one and so I ordered a transcript of the brief hearing.
[3] What transpired was that Ms. Sood was in an accident and suffered a concussion and was hospitalized. She attended at the offices of the Department of National Revenue and an official of the Department assisted her in preparing her income tax return and also in preparing her GST return. As a result she received a refund of $2,808.33. However, a subsequent assessment was issued whereby the Minister of National Revenue demanded that she repay the amount that she had previously been refunded. Interest and penalties were also assessed. On objection the liability for tax was reduced but interest and penalties on the reduced amount were imposed.
[4] At the hearing Ms. Sood proposed a settlement. I informed her that this court was not the appropriate forum in which to negotiate settlements.
[5] Nonetheless, Mr. Leclaire asked for a brief adjournment to discuss settlement and in fact a settlement was reached. The settlement involved a reduction of the liability for tax for 1994 and Ms. Sood agreed not to pursue her claim for a reduction of tax for 1995. Part of the settlement involved an undertaking by Mr. Leclaire to recommend to the Minister that he exercise his discretion to waive the interest and penalties for both 1994 and 1995.
[6] In the result, I issued the following judgment:
On consent given in open court, the appeal from the assessment made under the Excise Tax Act for the period ending December 31, 1994 is allowed and the assessment is referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment to allow the appellant a further input tax credit of $1,656.
The appeals form the assessments made under the Excise Tax Act for the periods ending December 31, 1994 and December 31, 1995 are further allowed and the assessments are referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for the purpose of permitting the Minister to exercise his discretion to waive the interest and penalties imposed in respect of the assessments in issue, based upon the recommendation of counsel for the respondent and of the Court, in light of the appellant's personal situation.
There will be no order for costs.
[7] The respondent argues that I should have dismissed the appeal for 1995 since I was not granting any relief from the tax imposed.
[8] No doubt under the so-called slip rule in Rule 168 or 172 I can correct errors where the judgment does not accord with what I intended to do. The judgment is, however, exactly what I intended: the appeal for 1994 was allowed to give the appellant a further input tax credit of $1,656 and the appeals for both years were allowed solely to permit the Minister to consider exercising his discretion to delete the interest and penalties for both years, based on the court's and Mr. Leclaire's recommendation. I have no power to direct the Minister to exercise his discretion, but I can make a non-binding recommendation. The reason I believed that the appeal from the assessment for 1995 should have been allowed and not dismissed is simply that allowing the appeal leaves the year open for the Minister to reassess. If the time limit for reassessing under section 298 of the Excise Tax Act had passed the Minister could well take the position that he was powerless to reassess to delete the interest and penalties.
[9] I am quite frankly at a loss to understand why the motion was brought. Allowing the appeal solely to keep the year open for a reassessment resulting from the possible exercise of the Minister's discretion under section 281.1 of the Act imposes no obligation on the Minister. It merely facilitates his implementation of his discretion.
[10] The motion is denied.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 30th day of April 1999.
|
"D.G.H. Bowman" |
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE NO.: 97-2395(GST)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: Between Praveen Sood and
Her Majesty The Queen
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable D.G.H. Bowman
DATE OF ORDER: April 30, 1999
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the appellant: The appellant herself
Counsel for the respondent: Anne-Marie Lévesque
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the appellant:
Name: --
Firm: --
For the respondent: Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada