Gabrielle Gullison (Applicant) v. The Minister of National Revenue (Respondent)
Published in: (1993), 93 Dominion Tax Cases 5214
Federal Court of Appeal, May 17, 1993.
(Court File No. A-783-92.)
HEADNOTE
In assessing the taxpayer for her 1985, 1986 and 1987 taxation years, the Minister included a number of items in her income for those years, including an unreported amount of $2,210 alleged to have been received as employment income. The taxpayer appealed to the Tax Court of Canada (93 DTC 595), alleging that the Income Tax Act was ultra vires the Parliament of Canada. The taxpayer's appeal was allowed in part (unreported). During the course of her appeal, the taxpayer was satisfied with Revenue Canada's explanations for all of the items in issue other than the one concerning the sum of $2,210. Inasmuch as the Minister was only able to justify $641.75 of this $2,210, however, the Tax Court ordered the Minister to reassess, reducing the $2,210 to $641.75. The Tax Court went on to dismiss the taxpayer's allegation concerning the constitutional invalidity of the Income Tax Act, relying on the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Winterhaven Stables Limited v. A-G Canada (October 17, 1988). The taxpayer then applied to the Federal Court of Appeal for a judicial review of the Tax Court's decision.
Held: The taxpayer's application was dismissed. Although the taxpayer felt that she had been unfairly treated by Revenue Canada, the record did not so indicate. Accordingly, there were no grounds upon which to justify interfering with the decision of the Tax Court Judge.
Counsel:
G. Gullison, the applicant in person;
D. Titosky for the respondent.
Before: Heald, Stone, and Robertson, JJ.A.
DECISION
Heald, J.A.: We have been unable to identify any possible grounds upon which the Court would be entitled to interfere with the decision of the Learned Tax Court Judge herein.
Based on her submissions to us, it is apparent that the Applicant feels that she was unfairly dealt with by Revenue Canada. Unfortunately for her, the record before us does not support that view. Accordingly, the application for Judicial Review pursuant to Section 28 of the Federal Court Act must be dismissed.