Federal appeal | Taxation
Income tax
No ground to interfere with reasoning of Federal Court judge or result reached
Taxpayer applied for relief under s. 152(4.2) of Income Tax Act (Can.), alleging that he was United States resident until June 2001 such that he was not liable for Canadian tax in 2000 taxation year and also that he was entitled to claim rental expenses for taxation years 2000, 2001, and 2002. Much of evidence relevant to these allegations had been sought from taxpayer several years earlier during audit, when taxpayer did not supply enough evidence to satisfy Minister on these points. Taxpayer’s application, submitted without any supporting documents, was denied. Taxpayer’s application for second-level relief, supported by some documents, was denied. Minister’s delegate concluded that minimal evidence submitted was insufficient to establish claim for relief and that application was attempt to circumvent normal objection and appeals process. Taxpayer’s application for judicial review was dismissed. Taxpayer appealed. Appeal dismissed. Federal Court judge found that Minister’s fact-based discretionary decision was acceptable and defensible on applicable law and on evidence submitted. Federal Court judge also rejected submission that Minister improperly fettered discretion by use of non-binding policy statement. Taxpayer did not establish that there was any ground to interfere with reasoning of Federal Court judge or result reached.
Ford v. Canada (Attorney General) (Apr. 26, 2016, F.C.A., Dawson J.A., David Stratas J.A., and Near J.A., A-441-15) Decision at 256 A.C.W.S. (3d) 987 was affirmed. 265 A.C.W.S. (3d) 812.
No ground to interfere with reasoning of Federal Court judge or result reached
Taxpayer applied for relief under s. 152(4.2) of Income Tax Act (Can.), alleging that he was United States resident until June 2001 such that he was not liable for Canadian tax in 2000 taxation year and also that he was entitled to claim rental expenses for taxation years 2000, 2001, and 2002. Much of evidence relevant to these allegations had been sought from taxpayer several years earlier during audit, when taxpayer did not supply enough evidence to satisfy Minister on these points. Taxpayer’s application, submitted without any supporting documents, was denied. Taxpayer’s application for second-level relief, supported by some documents, was denied. Minister’s delegate concluded that minimal evidence submitted was insufficient to establish claim for relief and that application was attempt to circumvent normal objection and appeals process. Taxpayer’s application for judicial review was dismissed. Taxpayer appealed. Appeal dismissed. Federal Court judge found that Minister’s fact-based discretionary decision was acceptable and defensible on applicable law and on evidence submitted. Federal Court judge also rejected submission that Minister improperly fettered discretion by use of non-binding policy statement. Taxpayer did not establish that there was any ground to interfere with reasoning of Federal Court judge or result reached.
Ford v. Canada (Attorney General) (Apr. 26, 2016, F.C.A., Dawson J.A., David Stratas J.A., and Near J.A., A-441-15) Decision at 256 A.C.W.S. (3d) 987 was affirmed. 265 A.C.W.S. (3d) 812.
