Tax Court of Canada does not have jurisdiction to set aside assessment on basis of abuse of process

Tax court of Canada | Tax | Income tax | Administration and enforcement

Taxpayer appealed in respect of 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2008 and 2010 taxation years pursuant to R. 53(3)(b) of Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure). Minister of National Revenue brought motion to quash appeals and to strike portions of fresh notice of appeal. Motion granted. Pursuant to s. 169(1) of Income Tax Act , taxpayer must first file notice of objection to assessment or reassessment under s. 165 of Act before he could file appeal to Tax Court of Canada. Taxpayer was out of time to file notices of objection in respect of contested years and was further barred from requesting extension of time to serve notices of objection pursuant to s. 166.1(7) of Act. Purported appeals were quashed on grounds that taxpayer had failed to fulfil necessary preceding condition. As Tax Court of Canada has no jurisdiction on issues raised by taxpayer and as he failed to challenge validity or correctness of any of assessments or reassessments issued in respect of 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2012 taxation years, these taxation years must be struck out from phrase “1995 to 1012 inclusive” on first page of fresh notice of appeal and paragraphs 33 and 34 of fresh notice of appeal must also be struck out. These issues had no reasonable chance of success and presented no reasonable ground for appeal. In tax matters, it was well established that Tax Court of Canada did not have jurisdiction to set aside assessment on basis of abuse of process or abuse of power and that courts had consistently held that actions of Canada Revenue Agency could not be taken into account in appeal against assessments. Paragraphs 12, 31 to 34, 37 to 41, 54, 55, 61 to 74, words “notwithstanding the taxpayer’s request for an extension of time to present evidence” in paragraph 53, paragraph 1 on page 13 and paragraph 1(a) on page 14 were struck from fresh notice of appeal.

King v. The Queen (2019), 2019 CarswellNat 39, 2019 TCC 2, Réal Favreau J. (T.C.C. [General Procedure]).

Free newsletter

Our newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

Insurer should pay professional fees, judge says

New reporting requirements for trusts could be just tip of the iceberg

In a first, Sidney B. Linden Award goes to Legal Aid Ontario staff lawyer

Equitable doctrine back before Ontario court after more than a century

Digital identity verification could present big opportunities for Ontario — but big risks, too

Queen’s Law partners with McGill to combat access-to-justice issues using AI and analytics

Most Read Articles

Equitable doctrine back before Ontario court after more than a century

Insurer should pay professional fees, judge says

Digital identity verification could present big opportunities for Ontario — but big risks, too

New reporting requirements for trusts could be just tip of the iceberg