Joseph Philliponi, Jr. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1951] CTC 255, [1951] DTC 528

By services, 8 July, 2024
Is tax content
Tax Content (confirmed)
Citation
Citation name
[1951] CTC 255
Citation name
[1951] DTC 528
Decision date
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
833455
Extra import data
{
"field_court_parentheses": "",
"field_external_guid": [],
"field_full_style_of_cause": "Joseph Philliponi, Jr., Appellant, and Minister of National Revenue, Respondent.",
"field_import_body_hash": "",
"field_informal_procedure": false,
"field_year_parentheses": "",
"field_source_url": ""
}
Style of cause
Joseph Philliponi, Jr. v. Minister of National Revenue
Main text

SIDNEY SMITH, D.J.:—The appellant appeals from a decision of the Income Tax Appeal Board dismissing his appeal from the Minister of National Revenue on assessments for 1946 and 1947 income tax made under Section 47 of the Income War Tax Act.

The onus rests upon appellant. He has failed to satisfy me, on the evidence now adduced, that the increase in his net worth over and above the income he reported was, as alleged, due to betting activities. I felt I was not being told the whole story.

I respectfully adopt the concluding passage in the judgment of the Appeal Board in the present case. ((1950) 2 Tax A.B.C. 279 at p. 283). It is as follows:

"However, there is still a stronger point which leads me to dismiss the appeal. I have said in other decisions, and I repeat, that I do not consider that an appellant appealing an assessment by the Minister under section 47 can meet the onus that is upon him by a general statement, unsupported by other acceptable evidence, that the increase in his net worth over and above the income reported is due to betting activities. Again a general statement to the effect that he thought he averaged a net gain of $10,000 a year in these activities is not in my opinion sufficient to meet the onus referred to. The Board has met such a plea on several occasions and it would appear to me to open wide the doors to tax evasion if such an unsupported statement were accepted as meeting and overriding the presumption of validity attributed to an assessment by the Minister. ‘ ‘

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.