http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/120326/index.do
Di Mauro v. Canada (September 29, 2015 – 2015 FCA 210, Gauthier, Webb (author), Near JJ. A.).
Précis: This case was heard, and a decision rendered from the bench, one day after a decision in two earlier DiMauro appeals also blogged on this site. As in the prior decision, the Tax Court had struck the notices of appeal and the Federal Court of Appeal reversed their decision and sent the appeals back to the Tax Court to proceed on the question of penalties only.
Thus the appeal was allowed in part with costs of $500 to the respondent.
Decision: The Court allowed the appeal in part and sent it back to the Tax Court to proceed only the issue of imposition of penalites:
[3] We are of the view and the crown agrees that there was no basis to strike the parts of the notices of appeal that are related to the assessment of penalties under subsection 163(2) of the Act (Ian E. Brown v. The Queen, 2014 FCA 301, [2014] F.C.J. No. 1302).
[4] Accordingly, Mr. Di Mauro’s appeal will be allowed, with costs to the Respondent in the amount of $500, and his appeals before the Tax Court of Canada will be reinstated but only with respect to the issue of whether penalties under subsection 163(2) of the Act should have been assessed.
[5] Since the Further Fresh Notices of Appeal dated October 16, 2013 replaced the Fresh Notices of Appeal dated May 22, 2013, only the Further Fresh Notices of Appeal dated October 16, 2013 will be addressed. Thus the Orders of the Tax Court Judge will be amended to read as follows:
a) Those parts of the Further Fresh Notices of Appeal dated October 16, 2013 for Tax Court Numbers 2012-3399(IT)I and 2012-4035(IT)G that do not relate to the assessment of penalties under subsection 163(2) of the Act are struck; and
b) Mr. Di Mauro shall pay costs to the Respondent in the amount of $500 in respect to both appeals: 2012-4035(IT)G and 2012-3399(IT)I.
Comment: It is not clear why costs were awarded to the respondent. In the decision rendered on the previous day costs were awarded to the appellants.