GEORGE STRANGE LTD.
Decisions
v.
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Appeal No. AP-93-052
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Ottawa, Tuesday, September 5, 1995
Appeal No. AP-93-052
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal heard on March 20, 1995, under section 81.19 of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a decision of the Minister of National Revenue dated February 23, 1993, with respect to a notice of objection served under section 81.15 of the Excise Tax Act.
BETWEEN
GEORGE STRANGE LTD. Appellant
AND
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent
The appeal is dismissed.
Robert C. Coates, Q.C. ______ Robert C. Coates, Q.C. Member
Lyle M. Russell ______ Lyle M. Russell Member
Nicole Pelletier ______ Nicole Pelletier Acting Secretary
This is an appeal under section 81.19 of the Excise Tax Act of an assessment of the Minister of National Revenue that rejected an application for a federal sales tax inventory rebate in the amount of $2,496.02 in respect of tax-paid goods held in inventory as of January 1, 1991, on the basis that it was filed outside the time limit specified by the Excise Tax Act. The envelope in which the appellant's application for rebate was mailed to the District Excise Office, Department of National Revenue, in Brandon, Manitoba, was postmarked February 6, 1992.
HELD: The appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal accepts February 6, 1992, as the date on which the application for rebate was filed. As such, the Tribunal finds that the application was not filed before 1992. The Tribunal's jurisdiction in determining appeals is very limited and does not include varying a statutory limitation period or applying equitable remedies. The Tribunal must apply the law, even where such application results in financial hardship for the appellant.
Tribunal Members: Arthur B. Trudeau, Presiding Member Robert C. Coates, Q.C., Member Lyle M. Russell, Member
Counsel for the Tribunal: Joël J. Robichaud
Clerk of the Tribunal: Anne Jamieson
Appearances: George D. Strange, for the appellant Jennifer Oulton, for the respondent
This is an appeal under section 81.19 of the Excise Tax Act [1] (the Act) of an assessment of the Minister of National Revenue that rejected an application for a federal sales tax (FST) inventory rebate, filed under section 120 [2] of the Act, on the basis that it was filed outside the time limit specified by the Act. The appellant served a notice of objection on August 20, 1992, that was disallowed by the respondent in a notice of decision dated February 23, 1993.
The appellant is a small enterprise carrying on business in Brandon, Manitoba. The appellant's representative filed an application for an FST inventory rebate in the amount of $2,496.02 in respect of tax-paid goods held in inventory as of January 1, 1991. The envelope in which the application form was mailed was postmarked February 6, 1992. The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to an FST inventory rebate in accordance with section 120 of the Act, although its application was not filed within the statutory time limit.
The appellant's representative testified that the application was not filed within the statutory time limit because, after attending a meeting sponsored by the Department of National Revenue, he went away with the understanding that time was not a problem. Because the company was going through some reorganization problems, the application was “put on the back burner.” The representative basically made a sympathetic plea to the Tribunal to grant the FST inventory rebate although it was not filed before 1992.
Counsel for the respondent argued that subsection 120(8) of the Act clearly provides that no rebate shall be paid under section 120 unless the application for rebate is filed before 1992. Since the envelope in which the application was mailed was postmarked February 6, 1992, the appeal must fail. The Tribunal has no authority to waive or extend statutory time limits and no authority to apply principles of equity or grant equitable relief in determining appeals. Furthermore, taxing statutes cannot be construed to avoid the effects of legislation, no matter how great the hardship may appear to be.
For the purposes of this appeal, the relevant rebate provisions of the Act are found at subsections 120(3) and (8), which provide, in part, as follows:
(3) Subject to this section, where a person who, as of January 1, 1991, is registered under Subdivision d of Division V of Part IX has any tax-paid goods in inventory at the beginning of that day,
(a) where the tax-paid goods are goods other than used goods, the Minister shall, on application made by the person, pay to that person a rebate in accordance with subsections (5) and (8).
(8) No rebate shall be paid under this section unless the application therefor is filed with the Minister before 1992.
It is clear to the Tribunal that, under subsection 120(8) of the Act, an application for an FST inventory rebate must be filed before 1992. It was agreed by the parties that the envelope in which the appellant's application for rebate was mailed to the District Excise Office, Department of National Revenue, in Brandon was postmarked February 6, 1992. The Tribunal has held on many occasions that the date of filing is the date on which the application is mailed and that the date of the postmark is evidence of the date of mailing. [3] As such, in the present case, the Tribunal finds that the application was not filed before 1992.
The appellant's representative requested that the Tribunal grant the appellant equitable relief. The Tribunal's jurisdiction in determining appeals is very limited and does not include varying a statutory limitation period or applying equitable remedies. The Tribunal must apply the law, even where such application results in financial hardship for the appellant. [4]
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
[ Table of Contents]
1. R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15.
2. S.C. 1990, c. 45, s. 12, as amended by S.C. 1993, c. 27, s. 6.
3. See, for example, Vern Glass Company (1976)) Limited v. The Minister of National Revenue, Appeal No. AP-92-221, December 13, 1993; and Lakhani Gift Store v. The Minister of National Revenue, Appeal No. AP - 92 - 167, November 15, 1993.
4. Joseph Granger v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1986] 3 F.C. 70, affirmed [1989] 1 S.C.R. 141.
Initial publication: August 28, 1996