| Citation: |
Canada (National Revenue) v. Robarts, 2010 FC 875, [2010] 4 F.C.R. D-4 |
T-510-10 |
Income Tax
Seizures
Motion by respondent to set aside jeopardy order issued under Income Tax Act, R.S.C., 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1, s. 225.2(2)—Respondent reassessed for taxes owing for 2005, 2006, 2008 tax years—In support of jeopardy order, Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) relying on respondent’s allegedly unorthodox manner in conducting tax affairs, i.e. $109 000 withdrawal from bank account; transfer of half his interest in property in Arizona—Issue whether reasonable grounds to believe collection of tax debt jeopardized by delay—Court unsatisfied Minister meeting obligation of making full, frank disclosure—In ex parte matters, applicant obliged to draw Court’s attention to all facts at issue, including unhelpful, inconvenient ones, with all relevant case law—Minister failing to report reappearance of $109 000 in respondent’s bank account less than two months after withdrawal—Such failure, even without malicious intent, seriously undermining ex parte application, therefore jeopardy order cannot stand—Omission of important factual elements, salient features of relevant case law from Minister’s written submissions not compliant with spirit of procedures—Respondent providing cogent evidence of reasonable grounds to doubt collection of tax debt jeopardized by delay—Also providing plausible explanations in response to CRA’s allegations of dissipating substantial assets—Respondent’s only assets in Canada constituting sums of money in various financial institutions—By their virtue, liquid assets easily put beyond Minister’s reach—However, by itself, not reasonable ground to believe taxpayer will waste, liquidate, transfer assets—Mere suspicions, concerns insufficient to establish reasonable grounds—Respondent’s undertakings constituting relevant factor in deciding whether or not appropriate to confirm, set aside, vary jeopardy order—Minister not showing that jeopardy order, collection actions taken justified considering particular circumstances herein—Motion allowed.
Canada (National Revenue) v. Robarts (T-510-10, 2010 FC 875, Martineau J., order dated September 3, 2010, 29 pp.)