AMBASSADOR CLOCKS OF CANADA LTD.

Decisions

AMBASSADOR CLOCKS OF CANADA LTD.
v.
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Appeal No. AP-90-171
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ottawa, Thursday, January 13, 1994

Appeal No. AP-90-171

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal heard on August 30, 1993, under section 81.22 of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a notice of objection served under section 81.15 of the Excise Tax Act with respect to an assessment of the Minister of National Revenue dated December 10, 1986.

BETWEEN

AMBASSADOR CLOCKS OF CANADA LTD. Appellant

AND

THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent

The appeal is dismissed.


W. Roy Hines ______ W. Roy Hines Presiding Member

Sidney A. Fraleigh ______ Sidney A. Fraleigh Member

Charles A. Gracey ______ Charles A. Gracey Member

Michel P. Granger ______ Michel P. Granger Secretary





This is an appeal under section 81.22 of the Excise Tax Act of an assessment of the Minister of National Revenue in the amount of $71,996.34, plus $18,275.26 for interest and $21,420.01 for penalty, in respect of undeclared taxable sales and clerical errors.

HELD: The appeal is dismissed. The appellant did not provide the Tribunal with sufficient information to support a decision that it was incorrectly assessed and, therefore, failed to satisfy its burden of proving that the assessment was incorrect.

Place of Hearing: Ottawa, Ontario Date of Hearing: August 30, 1993 Date of Decision: January 13, 1994
Tribunal Members: W. Roy Hines, Presiding Member Sidney A. Fraleigh, Member Charles A. Gracey, Member
Counsel for the Tribunal: Shelley Rowe
Clerk of the Tribunal: Janet Rumball
Appearance: Alain Lafontaine, for the respondent





This is an appeal under section 81.22 of the Excise Tax Act. [1] The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant was properly assessed for $71,996.34, plus $18,275.26 for interest and $21,420.01 for penalty, in respect of undeclared taxable sales and clerical errors, as set out in the notice of assessment dated December 10, 1986.

The appellant, which apparently went bankrupt in January 1992, did not file a brief with the Tribunal and did not attend the hearing. As a result, the Tribunal had little or no information relating to the appellant's claim. The Tribunal reviewed the only information available, namely, the appellant's notice of objection, which was received by the respondent on March 6, 1987. The Tribunal finds that the notice of objection is insufficient to support the appellant's claim that it was incorrectly assessed and that the appellant, therefore, failed to satisfy its burden of proving that the assessment was incorrect.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

[ Table of Contents]

1. R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15.

Initial publication: July 9, 1997