[2013] 2 F.C.R. D-7
Income Tax
Practice
Appeal, cross appeal from Tax Court of Canada interlocutory judgment (2010-1417 ITG) regarding appellant’s appeal from reassessments under Income Tax Act, R.S.C., 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1, allowing in part respondent’s motion to strike numerous paragraphs from appellant’s notice of appeal—Throughout 1996 to 1998, taxation years at issue, appellant carrying on business, keeping good business records—In 2003, Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) investigator (official with criminal investigations CRA division) sending appellant letter in which proposing to reassess appellant’s 1996, 1997, 1998 taxation years to add income, assess gross negligence penalties, indicating recommendation of criminal prosecution—Although no criminal prosecution ever commenced, various investigators using threat of reassessments to attempt to coerce appellant to plead guilty to criminal charges—However, appellant never pleading guilty—Reassessments issued for 1996 to 1998 taxation years; officials responsible for reassessments being investigators—Appellant filing notices of objection, denying earning net income as reassessed, making any misrepresentations in income tax returns for years at issue—Alleging that reassessments should be vacated because issued as result of misfeasance in public office on part of investigators; specifically, that grossly inflated reassessments authorized to coerce guilty plea to criminal charge—Whether T.C.C. correct in accepting respondent’s position that authorization of grossly inflated reassessment to coerce guilty plea to criminal charge not basis upon which assessment can be vacated—T.C.C. not erring when granting respondent’s motion to strike allegations, arguments in notice of appeal relating to misfeasance in public office—T.C.C.’s role in appeal of income tax assessment to determine validity, correctness of assessment based on relevant provisions of Act, facts giving rise to taxpayer’s statutory liability—Conduct of tax official authorizing assessment not relevant to determination of statutory liability—T.C.C. will not vacate reassessments under appeal in present case solely on basis of wrongful conduct of tax official authorizing them—Argument that no remedy for wrongful conduct available in any other court rejected since open to appellant to seek remedy in Federal Court or provincial superior court if having tort claim or administrative law claim arising from any tax official’s wrongful conduct—T.C.C. also correctly concluding that wrongful conduct unrelated to evidentiary matter generally not relevant to admissibility of evidence—As for respondent’s arguments in cross-appeal pertaining to nature of settlement offer, T.C.C. correctly exercising discretion when refusing to order striking of all settlement proposal allegations in notice of appeal—Appeal, cross-appeal dismissed.
Ereiser v. Canada (A-201-11, 2013 FCA 20, Sharlow J.A., judgment dated February 4, 2013, 20 pp.)