|
Docket: 2003-1865(IT)I |
|
BETWEEN: |
|
MICHEL GOBEIL, |
|
Appellant, |
|
and |
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, |
|
Respondent. |
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Appeal heard on October 21, 2003, at Shawinigan, Quebec.
|
Before: The Honourable Judge Paul Bédard |
|
|
|
|
|
Appearances: |
|
|
|
|
|
For the Appellant: |
The Appellant himself |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Julie David |
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessment under the Income Tax Act for the 2001 taxation year is dismissed for the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 12th day of January 2004.
|
"Paul Bédard" |
Bédard, J.
Translation certified true
on this 20th day of April 2004.
Sharon Moren, Translator
|
Citation: 2003TCC837 |
|
Date: 20040112 |
|
Docket: 2003-1865(IT)I |
|
BETWEEN: |
|
MICHEL GOBEIL, |
|
Appellant, |
|
and |
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, |
|
Respondent. |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Bédard, J.
[1] This is an appeal brought under the informal procedure against a reassessment by the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") with regard to the Appellant for the 2001 taxation year.
[2] In so reassessing the Appellant, the Minister made the following changes:
(i) he disallowed a deduction of $12,662 related to a retroactive lump-sum payment received by the Appellant during the 2001 taxation year;
(ii) he claimed an amount of $1,891.20 for repayment of a portion of employment insurance benefits received by the Appellant during the year (the "amount claimed");
(iii) he granted a deduction in the amount of $1,891.20 for repayment of employment insurance benefits during the year.
[3] In making his reassessment, the Minister relied on the following facts stated at paragraph 5 of the Notice of Appeal:
[translation]
(a) In filing his income tax return for the year at issue, the Appellant declared, among other things, income from an office or employment amounting to $60,715, which included a retroactive lump-sum payment made to him during the year.
(b) The Appellant also declared $6,304 income from employment insurance benefits and attached a T4E slip to this effect to his return.
(c) The slip indicated that, over the year the Appellant had received, regular employment insurance benefits in the amount of $6,304 and that the reimbursement rate applicable to these benefits amounted to 30%.
(d) As the result of an audit, the Minister disallowed the Appellant's deduction of $12,662 that the latter had claimed in relation to a retroactive lump-sum payment received during the year.
(e) As a result of this change, the Appellant's pre-adjusted net income was revised to $60,972.
(f) As the Appellant's net income for the taxation year at issue was greater than $48,750, he was required to repay the Receiver General for Canada a portion of the employment insurance benefits he had received during the year.
(g) The Minister subsequently determined that the Appellant owed $1,891.20 ($6,320 X 30%) as repayment of employment insurance.
(h) The Minister granted him an equivalent deduction, on the same basis.
[4] It is evident from the Appellant's testimony that:
(i) the amount of $12,662 that he received during the 2001 taxation year is from a retroactive lump-sum payment obtained as a result of a labour court adjudication for a grievance filed in 1994;
(ii) his work has been seasonal since 1996;
(iii) since the 1996 taxation year, he has received employment insurance benefits for approximately 18 weeks per year;
(iv) his employer's failure to remunerate him correctly caused his benefits to be lower than they should have been.
[5] During his testimony, the Appellant acknowledged that the Minister is entitled to deny his deduction of $12,662 and to reclaim the amount of $1,891.20 from him for repayment of a portion of the employment insurance benefits. However, he asked the Court to raise his employment insurance benefits for the previous years and to set off from the additional benefits that would be granted the amount of $1,891.20. The Appellant maintains that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of section 52 of the Employment Insurance Act ("Act"), to act on his request.
[6] This dispute therefore only deals with this Court's jurisdiction regarding such a request.
[7] The provisions of the Act relevant to my analysis are:
2.(1) In this Act,
"Commission" means the Canada Employment Insurance Commission;
"Minister" means the Minister of Human Resources Development, except in Parts IV and VII;
52. Reconsideration of claim. - (1) Notwithstanding section 120, but subject to subsection (5), the Commission may reconsider a claim for benefits within 36 months after the benefits have been paid or would have been payable.
91. Appeal of rulings. - An appeal to the Minister from a ruling may be made by the Commission at any time and by any other person concerned within 90 days after the person is notified of the ruling.
92. Appeal of assessments. - An employer who has been assessed under section 85 may appeal to the Minister for a reconsideration of the assessment, either as to whether an amount should be assessed as payable or as to the amount assessed, within 90 days after being notified of the assessment.
97.(1) Minister's Duty. - The Minister shall administer this Part, section 5 and any regulations made under section 5 or 55 and the Commissioner of Customs and Revenue may exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of the Minister under this Part.
103.(1) Appeal to the Tax Court of Canada. - The Commission or a person affected by a decision on an appeal to the Minister under section 91 or 92 may appeal from the decision to the Tax Court of Canada in accordance with the Tax Court of Canada Act and the applicable rules of court made thereunder within 90 days after the decision is communicated to the Commission or the person, or within such longer time as the Court allows on application made to it within 90 days after the expiration of those 90 days.
(1.1) Extension of time to appeal. - Section 167, except paragraph 167(5)(a), of the Income Tax Act applies, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of applications made under subsection (1).
(2) Communication of decision. - The determination of the time at which a decision on an appeal to the Minister under section 91 or 92 is communicated to the Commission or to a person shall be made in accordance with the rule, if any, made under paragraph 20(1.1)(h.1) of the Tax Court of Canada Act.
(3) Decision. - On an appeal, the Tax Court of Canada
(a) may vacate, confirm or vary a decision on an appeal under section 91 or an assessment that is the subject of an appeal under section 92;
(b) in the case of an appeal under section 92, may refer the matter back to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment;
(c)shall notify in writing the parties to the appeal of its decision; and
(d)give reasons for its decision but, except where the Court deems it advisable in a particular case to give reasons in writing, the reasons given by it need not be in writing.
114.(1) A claimant or other person who is the subject of a decision of the Commission, or the employer of the claimant, may appeal to the board of referees in the prescribed manner at any time within
(a) 30 days after the day on which a decision is communicated to them; or
(b) such further time as the Commission may in any particular case for special reasons allow.
120. The Commission, a board of referees or the umpire may rescind or amend a decision given in any particular claim for benefit if new facts are presented or if it is satisfied that the decision was given without knowledge of, or was based on a mistake as to, some material fact.
Analysis
[8] The Appellant should have addressed the Commission that, under sections 52 and 120 of the Act, has the power to re-examine his application for additional employment insurance benefits. In the event of disagreement with the Commission's decision, he could have then addressed the Board of Referees, as set out in section 114 of the Act, and not the Court.
[9] The Minister's powers under the Act are granted by section 97. It is important to stress that the Minister's powers deal with Part IV and section 5 of the Act. Part IV of the Act essentially deals with insurable earnings and the collection of premiums. Section 5 of the Act pertains to questions related to determination of insurable earnings.
[10] The Minister manages the repayment of overpayment of premiums and the taxpayer can appeal before the Court as in this case, from a decision by the Minister in this regard. However, the Minister has no power pertaining to additional employment insurance benefits or adjustments claimed by the Appellant and the compensation requested by him.
[11] The Court is without jurisdiction to allow the Appellant's application. The Court, unlike a superior court of a province, is created by the Tax Court of Canada Act and, subsequently, its power to hear and determine disputes is based on the terms used by Parliament in the Act granting it this power. No provision in the Act that constitutes the Court or in the Employment Insurance Act enables it to hear and deal with the Appellant's application.
[12] Therefore, only the Commission can determine whether the Appellant is entitled to these additional employment insurance benefits or adjustments. If he disagrees with the Commission's decision, he can appeal to the Board of Referees. Unfortunately, the Court's authority does not allow it to examine the Appellant's application.
[13] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 12th day of January 2004.
|
"Paul Bédard" |
Bédard, J.
Translation certified true
on this 20th day of April 2004.
Sharon Moren, Translator