Lornport Investments Ltd. et al. v. Minister of National Revenue, (1990) 42 F.T.R. 6 (TD)

• Judge: Rouleau, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 16, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 42 F.T.R. 6 (TD)

Lornport Inv. Ltd. v. MNR (1990), 42 F.T.R. 6 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Lornport Investments Limited (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(T-1104-88)

Project Construction Limited (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(T-1105-88)

Indexed As: Lornport Investments Ltd. et al. v. Minister of National Revenue

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Rouleau, J.

November 30, 1990.

Summary:

This case involved the status of a notice of reassessment after a second notice of reassessment was issued, but set aside by the court.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, held that the first notice of reassessment remained subsisting, notwith­standing the issuance of the second notice.

Income Tax - Topic 7852

Returns, assessments, payments and appeals - Assessments and reassessments - Effect of second reassessment - The taxpayers made capital gains in 1983 - In March 1984 a notice of assessment was issued - In 1987 a notice of reassessment was issued (the first notice) - The taxpayers instituted an appeal - Shortly thereafter, the taxpayers, in July 1988, received a second notice of reassessment - The second notice was set aside by the court for being issued outside the limita­tion period - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the first notice of reassessment remained subsisting and was not displaced by the second reassessment, because the second notice of reassessment was invalid.

Cases Noticed:

Bowater Mersey Paper Co. Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1986] 1 C.T.C. 535; 5 F.T.R. 8, refd to. [para. 9].

Coleman C. Abrahams (No. 1) v. Minister of National Revenue, [1966] C.T.C. 690, refd to. [para. 9].

Mary E. Walkem v. Minister of National Revenue, [1971] C.T.C. 513, refd to. [para. 11].

Canadian Marconi Company v. Canada (1989), 28 F.T.R. 165; 89 D.T.C. 5379 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

Statutes Noticed:

Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, sect. 152(1) [para. 3]; sect. 152(3) [para. 8]; sect. 152(4)(c) [para. 5]; sect. 152(8) [para. 8]; sect. 165 [para. 4]; sect. 166 [para. 8]; sect. 248 [para. 8, footnote 1].

Counsel:

D.C. Nathanson, for the plaintiff;

H. Erlichman, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

McDonald & Hayden, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiff;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, for the defendant.

This case was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on October 16, 1990, before Rouleau, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on November 30, 1990.