Date: 20030303
Docket: A-98-02
Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 109
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
BETWEEN:
DAVID ARNOLD
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 3, 2003
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 3, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: MALONE J.A.
Date: 20030303
Docket: A-98-02
Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 109
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
BETWEEN:
DAVID ARNOLD
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia
on March 3, 2003)
[1] We have not been persuaded that the Tax Court Judge committed any errors of fact or law that would warrant the intervention of this Court.
[2] On our review of the evidence, the Tax Court Judge correctly concluded that the Appellant failed to refute the Minister's assumption that Plasco Manufacturing Ltd. paid him a management fee of $392,800.00 in his 1995 taxation year. In arriving at this conclusion, Miller J.T.C.C. properly drew a negative inference from Mr. Arnold's failure to present corroborative and compelling evidence from corporate records or otherwise, that was within his power to adduce.
[3] Matters of credibility and the weight to be given oral evidence are the domain of the Tax Court Judge. We can discern no palpable and overriding errors in either the findings of facts or inferences of fact that were drawn in this case.
[4] The Appellant also contends that his rights under section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights have been breached because the Minister did not conduct an audit or inquiry of third parties or issue third party requirements in accordance with sections 231.1, 231.4 and 231.2 of the Income Tax Act. This, says the Appellant, amounts to a denial of due process of the law, i.e. according to the legal processes, recognized by Parliament and Canadian courts.
[5] This ground of appeal is also without merit for two reasons. First, there is not evidence in the record in connection with the Minister's audits or inquiries of third parties. The Appellant merely speculates that this was not done. Secondly, as the Tax Court Judge observed, the powers of the Minister under the foregoing sections are discretionary and there is no duty on the Minister to exercise such powers in every case.
[6] We are well satisfied that the Appellant has been afforded due process. Mr. Arnold exercised his statutory right to challenge the Minister's assessment. The failure to advance a compelling case is that of the Appellant alone and is not attributable to the Minister.
[7] We would dismiss the appeal with costs.
(Sgd.) "B. Malone"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-98-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: David Arnold v. HMQ
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, B.C.
DATE OF HEARING: March 3, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT : MALONE J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY:
DATED: March 3, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Donald W. Skogstad FOR THE APPELLANT
I. Thomas Torrie FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Donald W. Skogstad FOR THE APPELLANT
Nelson, B.C.
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada