Federal Appeal


Income tax

Administration and enforcement

Taxpayer’s appeal quashed for failing to serve valid notice of objection prior to filing appeal

Minister reassessed taxpayer under Income Tax Act, for unreported income for four taxation years. Taxpayer attempted to appeal reassessments. Minister’s motion to quash appeal on basis that taxpayer had not served valid notice of objection prior to filing notice of appeal was granted. Tax Court judge rejected taxpayer’s argument that notices of reassessment were not received by him, which if accepted would have meant that timeline for filing notice of objection would not be based on dates set out on notices of reassessment. Taxpayer appealed. Appeal dismissed. Taxpayer’s attempt to challenge admissibility of certain documents that were used to impeach his credibility during Tax Court hearing could not be considered, as it was too late to raise issue that he had not raised it in notice of appeal or memorandum of fact and law. Tax Court judge did not err in allowing taxpayer to be cross-examined based on his previous affidavits or in basing credibility finding on any inconsistency between his oral testimony and prior affidavits. Fair reading of Tax Court judge’s reasons led to conclusion that he based credibility finding not only on inconsistent statements but also on improbability of taxpayer’s version of events. Taxpayer did not raise any argument that would justify interfering with credibility finding. Tax Court judge did not commit any error in making finding that notices of reassessment had been mailed to taxpayer on dates identified by Minister. While Tax Court judge’s analysis required Minister to introduce evidence establishing that notice of reassessment was sent after taxpayer alleged otherwise, before considering credibility of taxpayer, initially assessing credibility of such allegation would not be error. If Tax Court judge were to determine that taxpayer was not credible in such allegation, it would amount to indirect finding that notice of reassessment was received and there would be no need for any further proof that notice was sent.

Mpamugo v. Canada (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 2952, 2017 FCA 136, Wyman W. Webb J.A., D.G. Near J.A., and Mary J.L. Gleason J.A. (F.C.A.); affirmed (2016), 2016 CarswellNat 4728, 2016 TCC 215, David E. Graham J. (T.C.C. [General Procedure]).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

A Law Society of Ontario tribunal has ruled that a lawyer charged with offences related to child pornography should not be subject to an interlocutory suspension. Do you agree with this decision?