P.L. Construction Ltd. v. Canada
A-725-97
Linden J.A.
26/6/98
4 pp.
Application for judicial review of Tax Court Judge's decision affirming penalties imposed on taxpayer pursuant to Act, s. 285 (gross negligence completion of GST return)-Issue whether TCJ correct in refusing to set aside assessment of penalties-TCJ extremely cryptic in explaining decision-Application dismissed-Despite skimpiness of reasons, decision should not be interfered with-Not necessary for trial judges to demonstrate knowledge of law and consideration of all aspects of evidence; trial judges presumed to know law; if they state conclusion in brief compass, and conclusion supported by evidence, should not be overturned: R. v. Burns, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656-Although reasons brief, sufficient to indicate TCJ impliedly found GST return completed in grossly negligent way-Plain from reasons TCJ of view accountant directing mind of taxpayer for purposes of taxation-Impliedly applied The Queen v. Columbia Enterprises Ltd. (1983), 83 DTC 5247 (F.C.A.) in making taxpayer responsible for conduct of accountant, authorized representative of company, who signed form and relied upon totally by sole shareholder and directing mind of company-Excise Tax Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. E-13, s. 285 (as enacted by S.C. 1990, c. 45, s. 12).