McClelland v. Canada

McClelland v. Canada

The Tax Court Judge did not err: the Minister proved mailing of the Notices of Assessment by affidavit and receipt was not required; the appellant did not file a valid Notice of Objection with the Chief of Appeals within the time prescribed by s.165(1) ITA; a letter to a Collection Enforcement Officer did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2004 FCA 315
Parties
Appellant: Brent Glynn McClelland; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / Federal Court of Appeal Appeal From Tax Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Income Tax Act, Notice of Assessment, Notice of Objection, Limitation Periods, Service and Mailing
Source Language
en
Tax Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Income Tax Act Notice of Assessment Notice of Objection Limitation Periods Service and Mailing

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brent Glynn McClelland

Appellant

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / Federal Court of Appeal Appeal From Tax Court of Canada

  1. 1 Whether Notices of Assessment were validly issued and mailed pursuant to s.152(7) ITA
  2. 2 Whether the appellant served a valid Notice of Objection within the time required by s.165(1) ITA
  3. 3 Whether the appeal was instituted within the time required by s.169(1) ITA

Ratio Decidendi

The Tax Court Judge did not err: the Minister proved mailing of the Notices of Assessment by affidavit and receipt was not required; the appellant did not file a valid Notice of Objection with the Chief of Appeals within the time prescribed by s.165(1) ITA; a letter to a Collection Enforcement Officer did not constitute a Notice of Objection; the appeal was therefore statute-barred under s.169(1) and was rightly struck out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.