Court’s role on judicial review was not to determine fairness of CRA’s decision

Taxpayer invested in limited partnership and claimed partnership losses and carrying charges, which were disallowed in reassessments. Taxpayer’s objection was held in abeyance pending resolution of test case. As part of settlement, Minister of National Revenue waived interest for certain periods. Taxpayer’s first request for interest relief pursuant to s. 220(3.1) of Income Tax Act was partly granted due to delays during appeals process. Taxpayer’s second request for interest relief on ground that other investors in partnership were not reassessed was dismissed because Canada Revenue Agency’s treatment of others could not form basis for relief. Taxpayer’s third request for interest relief was partly granted based on delays in issuing reassessments, during test case proceedings and in processing objections, but Minister denied any more relief because taxpayer failed to make voluntary payments despite being warned about interest. Taxpayer brought application for judicial review of third decision. Application dismissed. Decision was reasonable. Court’s role on judicial review was not to determine fairness of CRA’s decision to reassess taxpayer. Taxpayer did not argue on third request about alleged unequal treatment of investors at audit stage, so Minister did not err in not taking this argument into account. There were no inadequacies in information before Minister. Fact that taxpayer’s advisors’ investment advice was not successful was not sufficient to grant interest relief.

Martel v. Canada (Attorney General) (2019), 2019 CarswellNat 2952, 2019 CarswellNat 3649, 2019 FC 840, 2019 CF 840, Elizabeth Walker J. (F.C.).

Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca