 Printer-Friendly Page
Date: 20040318
Docket: A-715-02
Citation: 2004 FCA 116
CORAM: RICHARD C.J. NOËL J.A. PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
ALAIN DÉZIEL
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on March 18, 2004.
Judgment delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on March 18, 2004.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: PELLETIER J.A. Date: 20040318
Docket: A-715-02
Citation: 2004 FCA 116
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
BETWEEN:
ALAIN DÉZIEL
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on March 18, 2004)
[1] In our view, there is no cause to intervene save with respect to the respondent's concession at the hearing to the effect that the sum of $22,718.98 should be allowed in input tax credits.
[2] We find it regrettable that this concession was not made before the hearing.
[3] We believe it would be useful to add that, regarding the appellant's argument based on the limitation period, we adopt the position of Dussault J.T.C.C. in Trudel v. Canada, [2001] T.C.J. No. 82 (Q.L.), as quoted by the judge of the Tax Court of Canada at paragraph 104 of his reasons: [19] Paragraph 296(1)(a) provides that the Minister may assess, reassess or make an additional assessment of the net tax of a person under Division V for a reporting period of the person. With regard to a person's net tax for a reporting period, subparagraph 298(1)(a)(I) provides that an assessment may not be made more than four years after the later of the day on or before which the person was required under section 238 to file a return for the period and the day the return was filed. However, the appellant never filed a return pursuant to paragraph 191(1)(e) of the Act, according to which she is deemed to have collected the GST when she rented her complex in April 1991. Thus, the time limit for assessing the appellant had not expired on October 24, 1997. The assessment was therefore validly made on that date.
. . .
[25] In short, I consider that the assessment of October 24, 1997, is valid under subparagraph 298(1)(a)(I) of the Act because the appellant never filed a return as she was required to do pursuant to subsection 191(1) of the Act.
[4] This interpretation does not render paragraph 298(1)(c) moot. Paragraph 298(1)(c) applies to the person who must pay the tax contemplated by this provision, without having the obligation to file a return.
[5] The appeal will be allowed in part but only to recognize the respondent's admission that the sum of $22,718.98 will be granted in input tax credits.
[6] The respondent will be entitled to her costs.
"Denis Pelletier" J.A.
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-715-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: ALAIN DÉZIEL Appellant and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: March 18, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: RICHARD C.J., NOËL, PELLETIER JJ.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: PELLETIER J.A.
APPEARANCES:
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
