Tax Court of Canada Judgments

Decision Information

Monsef v. The Queen

Court (s) Database Tax Court of Canada Judgments
Date 2012-06-05
Neutral citation 2012 TCC 189
File numbers 2012-396(IT)APP
Judges and Taxing Officers Wyman W. Webb
Subjects Income Tax Act

Decision Content

 

 

 

Docket: 2012-396(IT)APP

BETWEEN:

JOHN MONSEF,

Applicant,

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

Application heard on May 1, 2012, at Vancouver, British Columbia

 

Before: The Honourable Justice Wyman W. Webb

 

Appearances:

 

For the Applicant:

The Applicant Himself

Counsel for the Respondent:

Nabeel Peermohamed,

(Student-at-law)

Amandeep Sandhu

____________________________________________________________________

ORDER

 

          The Applicant’s application to extend the time within which appeals to this Court in relation to the reassessments of the Applicant’s 2004, 2005 and 2006 taxation years may be instituted is dismissed, without costs.

 

Signed at Edmonton, Alberta, this 5th day of June 2012.

 

 

 

 

“Wyman W. Webb”

Webb J.

 

 

 

Citation: 2012TCC189

Date: 20120605

Docket: 2012-396(IT)APP

 

BETWEEN:

JOHN MONSEF,

Applicant,

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

 

REASONS FOR ORDER

 

 

Webb J.

 

[1]              The Applicant, on January 19, 2012, filed an application to extend the time within which appeals to this Court in relation to the reassessments of the Applicant’s 2004, 2005 and 2006 taxation years may be instituted. The notice of confirmation of the reassessments of the Applicant’s 2004, 2005 and 2006 taxation years was dated September 9, 2010.

 

[2]              The time within which an appeal may be instituted to this Court is set out in subsection 169(1) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”), which, prior to December 15, 2010, provided as follows:

 

169.  (1) Where a taxpayer has served notice of objection to an assessment under section 165, the taxpayer may appeal to the Tax Court of Canada to have the assessment vacated or varied after either

 

(a) the Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessed, or

 

(b) 90 days have elapsed after service of the notice of objection and the Minister has not notified the taxpayer that the Minister has vacated or confirmed the assessment or reassessed,

 

but no appeal under this section may be instituted after the expiration of 90 days from the day notice has been mailed[1] to the taxpayer under section 165 that the Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessed.

 

[3]              If a taxpayer does not institute an appeal within this time period (which the Applicant did not), the taxpayer may, as provided in section 167 of the Act, apply to have the time for instituting an appeal extended. However, paragraph 167(5)(a) of the Act provides as follows:

 

(5) No order shall be made under this section unless

 

(a) the application is made within one year after the expiration of the time limited by section 169 for appealing; …

 

[4]              As a result of the provisions of paragraph 167(5)(a) of the Act, unless the Applicant made the application to extend the time within which appeals to this Court may be instituted in relation to the reassessments of the Applicant’s 2004, 2005 and 2006 taxation years within one year and 90 days from the day that notice that the reassessments had been confirmed was mailed[2] to the Applicant, no order to grant the requested extension of time can be made.

 

[5]              In this case the Applicant’s application to extend the time within which appeals to this Court in relation to the reassessments of the Applicant’s 2004, 2005 and 2006 taxation years may be instituted (which was filed on January 19, 2012) was not made within this time period as it was not made until more than one year and four months after the reassessments of the Applicant’s 2004, 2005 and 2006 taxation years had been confirmed (September 9, 2010). Therefore no order can be granted to extend the time within which appeals to this Court in relation to the reassessments of the Applicant’s 2004, 2005 and 2006 taxation years may be instituted. The provisions of paragraph 167(5)(a) of the Act are clear and there is no provision of the Act that would allow this Court to extend this time period.

 

[6]              As a result, the Applicant’s application to extend the time within which appeals to this Court in relation to the reassessments of the Applicant’s 2004, 2005 and 2006 taxation years may be instituted is dismissed, without costs.

 

 

Signed at Edmonton, Alberta, this 5th day of June 2012.

 

 

 

 

“Wyman W. Webb”

Webb J.

CITATION:                                       2012TCC189

 

COURT FILE NO.:                            2012-396(IT)APP

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          JOHN MONSEF AND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                     Vancouver, British Columbia

 

DATE OF HEARING:                       May 1, 2012

 

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:           The Honourable Justice Wyman W. Webb

 

DATE OF ORDER:                           June 5, 2012

 

APPEARANCES:

 

For the Applicant:

The Applicant Himself

Counsel for the Respondent:

Nabeel Peermohamed, (Student-at-law)

Amandeep Sandhu

 

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

 

       For the Applicant:

 

                          Name:                     

 

                            Firm:                    

 

       For the Respondent:                    Myles J. Kirvan

                                                          Deputy Attorney General of Canada

                                                          Ottawa, Canada


[1] Effective December 15, 2010, the word “sent” was substituted for “mailed”.

[2] As a result of the provisions of subsection 244(14) of the Act, the notice of confirmation is presumed to be mailed or sent on the date of such notice.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.