- This is the Applicant's application for judicial review of the decision of the Minister of National Revenue pursuant to subsection 220(3.1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), as amended (the "Act"), denying the waiver of penalties and interest otherwise payable under the Act for the 1993 to 1996 taxation years, inclusive.
- On November 18, 1997, the Applicant applied to the Minister of National Revenue pursuant to subsection 220(3.1) of the Act for the waiver of penalties and interest payable under the Act ("Fairness") in respect of his 1993 to 1996 taxation years, inclusive. The penalties and interest relate to tax assessments which were not appealed by the Applicant.
Affidavit of Christopher Vondette, paragraph 9 (Tab A, Respondent's Application Record)
- The basis of the Applicant's request for Fairness relief was that the assessed tax, and consequent penalties and interest created a situation of financial hardship for the Applicant.
Affidavit of Christopher Vondette, Exhibit B (Respondent's Application Record, Tab A)
- As of January 13, 1999, the total penalties were $60.11 and total interest was $6,520.07 with respect to the 1993 to 1996 taxation years, inclusive.
John Robertson is a lawyer who ran into tax problems when he left his partnership in 1996. Mr. Robertson could have elected to defer his unbilled hours to his new law practice, but instead he reported them as taxable. He then failed to pay the tax due.
Although Mr. Robertson could still have made the election within a year of filing, he decided not to. As a result, interests and penalties in the amount of $6520 have accrued over a period of some three years.
On November 18, 1997, John Robertson applied to the Minister of National Revenue for a waiver of interest and penalties on the basis of financial hardship. The Minister considered Mr. Robertson's current income, expenses, assets, liabilities, and capacity to borrow money. Finding that Mr. Robertson held $220,000 in a registered retirement savings plan, continued to contribute $1,000 monthly to that RRSP, and held $40,000 of equity in real property, the Minister refused to grant the waiver.
Mr. Robertson asked the Minister to reconsider. On April 27, 1999, the Minister informed him that the decision would remain the same.
Now Mr. Robertson argues on appeal that he should have been granted the waiver.
The issue before court is not whether the decision was correct, but whether the Minister followed due process in reaching his/her decision.