Weinberg Family Trust v. R. - TCC: TCC has no jurisdiction to determine residence for Ontario tax

Weinberg Family Trust v. R. - TCC:  TCC has no jurisdiction to determine residence for Ontario tax

http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/142520/index.do

Weinberg Family Trust v. The Queen  (February 12, 2016 – 2016 TCC 37, V. Miller J.).

Précis:   The Weinberg Family Trust filed in 2007 to 2010 as a resident of Alberta.  The Minister reassessed on the basis that the Trust was a resident of Ontario and applied gross negligence penalties.  The Trust filed appeals both with the Tax Court and the Ontario Superior Court.  The Crown moved to quash the notice of appeal in the Tax Court.  The Tax Court held it had no jurisdiction to determine the residence of a trust for Ontario income tax purposes, nor to examine the imposition of Ontario penalties and quashed the notice of appeal with costs to the Crown.

Decision:   The matter seems rather straight forward:

[12]        The Tax Court of Canada is a statutory court and its jurisdiction is limited by the Tax Court of Canada Act and the statutes it adjudicates. It has jurisdiction with respect to provincial income tax only to the extent that the jurisdiction is conferred on it by the provinces: Gardner v Canada, 2001 FCA 401 at paragraph 16.

[13]        It is clear that this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals where the only issue is residency in the Province of Ontario. That jurisdiction is with the Ontario Courts: See Income Tax Act, R.S.O. 1990. c. I.2, s. 23; Taxation Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c. 11, ss. 125; and also see Gardner (supra) at paragraph 17.

[14]        It is my view that it is also clear that the Tax Court of Canada does not have jurisdiction to decide if a provincial penalty is properly imposed: Andrew Paving & Engineering Ltd v Minister of National Revenue, [1984] C.T.C. 2164 (TCC) at paragraph 8 and Raboud v Canada, 2009 TCC 99 at paragraph 12.

[15]        It is unfortunate that the Canada Revenue Agency misdirected the Appellant to appeal to this Court but that error cannot change the legislation or give this Court jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

[16]        The motion is granted and the appeal is quashed.

[17]        The Respondent is awarded its costs for this motion.

The problem seems to have stemmed from a standard form letter received by the taxpayer from CRA:

[10]        Furthermore, the letter enclosed with the Notice of Confirmation from the Minister directed that if the Appellant wished to appeal the reassessments, it must appeal to the Tax Court of Canada.

This proved an unfortunate way to deal with bureaucratic confusion.