A.B Ltd v The Board of Inland Revenue
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Koylass, C.,Burke, M.,Julumsingh, M. |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 1982 |
| Court | Tax Appeal Board (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Docket Number | I 52/1979 |
| Date | 14 November 1982 |
Tax Appeal Board
Koylass, C.; Burke, M.; Julumsingh, M.
I 52/1979
Bruce Procope, S.C. and V Akala for the appellant.
E. John-Charles and S. Collymore for the respondent.
Preliminary point dismissed, purported appeal struck out.
Cases referred to:
-
(1) Syne's Contracting Co. Ltd. v. B.LR. (1967–77) 1 T.T.T.C. 686.
-
(2) Lucien Parant v. AM (1959) 13 DTC 163.
-
(3) Canada Sugar Refining Co. v. R. [1898] A.C. 735; 67 UPC 126; 79 LT 146.
Preliminary point on determination of objection within time period.
Statute - Statutory Interpretation — Service — Whether the objection had been determined within twelve months after service — Consideration of Canada Sugar Refining Co v. R [1898] A.C. 735 — Objection duly made under Section 42(5) and (6) of the Income Tax Ordinance — Whether the objection under section 42(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance required that every ground of objection had to be given and every reasons for its decision — Finding that the Company was entitled to appeal to the Appeal Board against the decision within twenty — eight days of the receipt of the notice of determination.
By letter of May 26, 1976, the appellant objected to assessments of income tax made by the respondent and specified grounds why its claim for expenses should have been allowed. On May 19, 1977, the respondent informed the appellant that the assessments had been reconsidered and its tax liability had been reduced. Subsequent thereto, the respondent issued assessment notices setting out the adjusted sums payable on the adjusted chargeable income. In July 1977, the appellant wrote the respondent stating that the notices and other communication did not address the issue raised in its objection.
Further correspondence ended with the respondent's letter in May 1979, in which the appellant was advised that it may wish to take the matter to the Appeal Board.
The appellant appealed the decision of the respondent in May 1979 and as a preliminary point argued that the respondent failed to reconsider the assessments and to deal with the whole of the objections within 12 months as required by the Income Tax Ordinance.
The respondent is required to reconsider an assessment where an objection has been duly made and to serve a notice on the objector of its decision within 12 months; the respondent is not required to indicate that it has considered every ground of objection nor to give reasons for its decision; in this case, the notice of May 19, 1977 satisfies the respondent's duty to reconsider the assessments and to determine the appellant's objection within twelve months.
On 28th June, 1979, the appellant company, which we shall herein-after refer to as “the Company”, filed a notice of appeal which stated, inter alia, as follows:–
Notice of appeal to the Appeal Board is hereby given from the decision of the Board of Inland Revenue dated the day of May, 1979, wherein the respondent claims that the appellant's objection of the 26th May, 1976, to the assessment of income for the income year 1973 was properly determined.
The letter referred to in the notice of appeal as conveying the decision of the Board of Inland Revenue reads as follows:–
File No. 100497/9
Income year 1973
I refer to your letter of 16th February, 1979 and again advise that the objection was determined within the one year period prescribed by section 42(8) of the Ordinance.
You may, however, wish to take the matter to the Appeal Board for a decision.
At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Procope, Senior Counsel for the Company, stated that the appeal was one in which there was a matter in the nature of a preliminary point, and suggested that for the purpose of expediting the full appeal the evidence be comprised of the affidavits of Lydia Des Sources dated 9th April, 1980, and that of Michael Cyril Marques dated 7th May, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as “M.C.M.”). This was agreed by Mr. John-Charles. It was also agreed that a letter from the respondent dated 19th April, 1977, should be accepted as factual.
The affidavit of Lydia Des Sources reads as follows:–
I LYDIA DES SOURCES of 5 Newalloville, San Juan, make oath and say as follows, except where otherwise stated the facts deposed to herein are within my personal knowledge:
(1) I am a Field Auditor IV attached to the Inland Revenue Division of the Ministry of Finance.
(2) My duties involve supervising the Objection Section which deals with objections to assessments made under the provisions of Section 42(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, Chapter 33 No. 1.
(3) In accordance with the provisions of Section 42(8) of the Income Tax Ordinance, Chapter 33 No. 1, all notices of objection are to be determined by the Board of Inland Revenue within twelve months after service by persons disputing assessments.
(4) The appellant, A. B. Limited, served on the respondent, a notice of objection dated 26th May 1976 in respect of 1974 year of income.
(5) With respect to the said notice of objection, the respondent, by letter dated 19th May, 1977 informed the appellant of adjustments to certain items in the assessment of the appellant and attached an audit report dated 10th May 1977 which explained the said adjustments.
(6) I am satisfied that the appellant's objection was duly determined by the Objection Section within the time prescribed by the Income Tax Ordinance, Chapter 33 No. 1, and that the said appellant was informed of the Board's decision by letter dated 19th May, 1977.
and that of M.C.M. reads —
I, MICHAEL CYRIL MARQUEZ of No. 3, Christina Gardens, Arima, Secretary/Accountant, make oath and say as follows:–
1. I am the Secretary/Accountant of the appellant and I am duly authorised to make the Affidavit herein on its behalf. The facts deposed to herein are within my personal knowledge unless otherwise indicated.
2. I have read the Affidavit of Lydia Dos Sources sworn herein the 9th April, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Affidavit’). The objection dated 26th May, 1976, served by the appellant and referred to in paragraph 4 of the said Affidavit is in respect of the year of income 1973 and not 1974.
3. On the 29th April, 1974, the appellant duly furnished to the respondent a return of its income in respect of the year 1973 assessing itself in respect of corporation tax in the sum of $157,964.01 and in respect of unemployment levy in the sum of $17,551.56 and duly paid to the respondent the sum of $8,174.83 and $908.32 being the balance due in respect of the said assessment for corporation tax and unemployment levy respectively. A true copy of the said return is now produced and shown to me and is hereto exhibited and marked “MCM1”.
4. By letter dated the 12th January, 1976, with audit report attached the respondent informed the appellant that its corporation tax assessment for the year 1973 was increased by $140,548.89 on adjusted chargeable profits totalling $663,362.00 by reason of adjustments made by the respondent to six items included in the appellant's said return, namely (1) interest paid to Directors and Associates, (ii) Loss on Sale of Land at. Goodwood Park, (iii) Interest paid to non-residents, (iv) Travelling, (v) Interest paid on Overdraft, and (vi) Wages paid to Directors (hereinafter referred to as ‘The said items’). A true copy of the said letter dated the 12th January, 1976, with the said audit report attached is now produced and shown to me and hereto exhibited and marked “MCM2”.
5. On the 12th May, 1976, the appellant received from the respondent two assessment notices both dated the 28th April, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the said assessments”) requiring the appellant to pay on or before the 18th June, 1976, the respective sums of $140,648.89 and $15,616.64 by way of additional tax and levy respectively for the year 1973. The copies of the said assessments dated the 28th April, 1976, are now produced and shown to me and are hereto exhibited and marked “MCM3” and “MCM4” respectively.
6. By letter dated the 26th May, 1976, and delivered to the respondent on the 27th May, 1976, the appellant duly gave notice of its objection to the said assessments and the adjustments made to the said items and requested the respondent to review the said assessments. True copies of the said letter dated the 26th May, 1976, and of the said delivery thereof to the respondent dated the 27th May, 1976, are now produced and shown to me and are hereto exhibited and marked “MCM5” and “MCM6” respectively.
7. (a) By letter dated the 19th April, 1877, the respondent requested the appellant to attend at its office and to produce documents relating to two of the items referred to in paragraph 4 hereof namely Loss on Sale of Land and Travelling (hereinafter referred to as “the said two items”). A true copy of the said letter dated the 19th April, 1977, is now produced and shown to me and is hereto exhibited and marked “MCM7”.
(b) In accordance with the said request the appellant attended at the respondent's office on the 28th April, 1977, and discussed the said two items with the respondent.
8. On the 20th May, 1977, the appellant received from the respondent a letter dated the 19th May, 1977, with audit report showing adjustments in respect of the said two items. By the said letter the respondent informed the appellant inter cilia that the said assessments had been reconsidered that as a result the appellant was no longer liable to tax on the same and that a Tax Demand Notice would be sent to the appellant under separate cover. A true copy of the said letter dated the 19th May, 1977, is now produced and shown to me and is hereto exhibited and marked “MCM8”.
9. On the 9th July, 1977, the appellant received two further assessment notices both dated the 19th July, 1977 (apparently in error and hereinafter called ‘the new assessments’)...
To continue reading
Request your trial