http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/119638/index.do
Heroux v. The Queen (September 2, 2015 – 2015 TCC 183, Paris J.). [This decision was rendered from the bench on May 4, 2015 but the recording equipment did not work and Justice Paris reconstructed the reasons from his notes and released them September 2, 2015.]
Précis: The appellant was assessed $22,387.82 pursuant to subsection 160(1) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) in respect of amounts transferred to her bank account by her husband at a time he owed back income taxes. The appellant’s representative argued that CRA had not proven that the bank account in question was that of the appellant. The Court rejected this line of argument. The appellant did not testify and the Court drew a negative inference. The final argument - that Ms. Heroux was a resident of Manitoba but not a resident of Canada - was dismissed out of hand.
The appeal was dismissed. No costs were awarded as this was an informal procedure appeal.
Decision: The appellant was assessed $22,387.82 pursuant to subsection 160(1) of the Act in respect of amounts transferred to her bank account by her husband. The appellant’s representative argued that the Crown had not proven that the bank account belonged to her. The Court rejected this argument:
[6] Mr. Shannon submitted that the Respondent failed to prove that the Appellant and the person identified in the notice of assessment were “one and the same.” Specifically, he argued that the SIN shown on the assessment belonged to the Appellant and could not be used as a means of identifying a taxpayer. Therefore, Mr. Shannon said that the Respondent had not proved that the Appellant was connected with the SIN used by the Minister to assess Sandra Pauline Heroux.
[7] Mr. Shannon’s submission cannot succeed. Even if a SIN could not be used as a means of identifying a taxpayer, which I do not accept, the evidence shows clearly that the Minister also used a number of other pieces of information to identify the Appellant as the person liable under subsection 160(1) of the ITA for the tax debts of Glen Heroux. In addition to a SIN, the Minister relied upon a date of birth and address to identify the Appellant.
The argument that she was a resident of Manitoba, but not of Canada, fared no better than the SIN argument:
[10] Finally, in rebuttal, Mr. Shannon raised a new argument: that the Appellant was not a resident of Canada and therefore was not liable under the ITA for the amounts assessed. Mr. Shannon conceded that the Appellant was a resident of Manitoba, but maintained that a resident of Manitoba was not a resident of Canada. For obvious reasons, I reject the proposition that a resident of Manitoba is not a resident of Canada.
The Court also drew a negative inference from Ms. Heroux’s failure to testify. She had not met the onus of demolishing the Crown’s assumptions.
The appeal was dismissed. No costs were awarded as this was an informal procedure appeal.