Savary Resort Properties LTD v. Minister of National Revenue, [1972] CTC 2608, 72 DTC 1497

By services, 21 December, 2022
Is tax content
Tax Content (confirmed)
Citation
Citation name
[1972] CTC 2608
Citation name
72 DTC 1497
Decision date
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
667467
Extra import data
{
"field_court_parentheses": "",
"field_external_guid": [],
"field_full_style_of_cause": "Savary Resort Properties Ltd, Applicants, and Minister of National Revenue, Respondent.",
"field_import_body_hash": "",
"field_informal_procedure": false,
"field_year_parentheses": "",
"field_source_url": ""
}
Style of cause
Savary Resort Properties LTD v. Minister of National Revenue
Main text

The Chairman:—This is an application by Savary Beach Lands Ltd and Savary Resort Properties Ltd (under section 167 of the Income Tax Act, as amended by 1970-71-72, c 63) for leave to file Notices of Objection in respect of the 1967 taxation year. The Crown has taken the position that it will not object to it.

Having read the pleadings in advance and the affidavits in support of the motion, I find this to be rather an unusual: case and therefore grant the application.

However, in passing, I think that I should say for the record, and for the information of taxpayers generally, that this new provision of the Act, which removes specific restrictions and opens the door, so to speak, for applications for late filing, is one that gives this Board considerable concern. It goes without saying that the provisions of section 61A of the old Act, which made it necessary for the delay to be the result of the incapacity of the taxpayer, were far more restrictive than the present section in the new Act, which removes that restriction and makes it possible for an application to be made where the fault, if such may be the term, in not filing within the prescribed time, is that of someone other than the taxpayer, individual or corporate.

This Board takes the position that the granting of an extension in time under section 167 will be the exception rather than the rule. Human frailty will no doubt give rise on occasion to unusual circumstances, such as those before the Board this morning, wherein it is fair and reasonable to grant such an extension. However, to simply grant such extensions and imply that all applications — where the breach is but a few days — will be granted, is to make a mockery of the period of limitations set down in the Act.

Therefore this Board will, in all cases, regardless of the time that passes between the limitation period in the Act and the filing of the application for extension of time, require exceptional circumstances before any such application will receive approval. I say this in the hope that this district (Victoria) will thus be made aware of the feeling of the Board in this matter, and it will be made known across the country at the various sittings of the Board before the various members thereof from time to time.