http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/73120/index.do 
Teng v. The Queen (August 12, 2014 – 2014 TCC 248) was a tax appeal full of twists and turns that give it an air of fiction were it not for the taxpayer’s clear attempt to abuse the tax appeal system to obtain an immigration advantage.
The appeal concerned the 1999 and 2000 taxation years:
[1] The issue in this appeal is whether the Minister of National Revenue properly reassessed the Appellant by including the amounts of $124,441 and $233,161 in his income for the 1999 and 2000 taxation years respectively. The Minister reassessed the Appellant beyond the statutory time limit and he levied gross negligence penalties.
The taxpayer commenced an appeal in the Tax Court in 2005. It appears that he was a resident of Canada in 1999 and 2000 but by 2005 had been deported to China.
[4] The Appellant instituted his appeal on April 11, 2005. When the Court notified the parties by letter dated October 19, 2005 that there should be a status hearing in this case or the parties could submit a mutually agreeable litigation timetable, it was informed that the Appellant was no longer in Canada. He was in China and was unable to obtain a Visa to re-enter Canada after a removal order had been made against him by the Immigration and Refugee Board (Immigration Appeal Division).
The next nine years passed in what seems to have been a sort of stalemate between the taxpayer who claimed he could not get a visa to enter Canada, the Crown who wanted the appeal dismissed and the Court which was trying to control its processes. Toward the end of this protracted period it started to become clear that the taxpayer had, in effect, a hidden agenda of getting the Court to intercede on his behalf to obtain a visa to attend his tax appeal:
[18] On March 1, 2012, the Court directed that this appeal would be heard by video conference. The parties were asked to provide their availability for the months of July, August and September 2012. The Appellant objected to his appeal being heard by video conference on the basis that he felt he would not get a fair trial if he could not enter Canada to prepare for the hearing. He asked the Court to intercede with Immigration or Foreign Affairs on his behalf to assist him in getting a Visa. The Respondent was willing to have the appeal heard by video conference and gave the dates she was available for the hearing.
The Court informed the appellant that it was unable to assist him in obtaining a visa to enter Canada and the stalemate proceeded. Finally the appeal was set down for hearing on July 9, 2014 in Toronto.
The taxpayer sought to adjourn the hearing and in the course of that effort it came to light that he was no longer resident in China:
[23] The documents which accompanied the application for an adjournment disclosed that the Appellant had been living in the United Kingdom since at least September 14, 2010. According to his Marriage Certificate, he married Ping Wang, a British citizen, in Oxford, England on that date. His profession was listed as a car dealer. Also included with the attachments to the application for an adjournment was a letter from Visa & Immigration UK which indicated that on June 15, 2014, the Appellant had submitted an application for naturalisation in the United Kingdom.
[24] At no time prior to the application for an adjournment, did the Appellant inform this Court that he was no longer living in China and had moved to the United Kingdom.
At the July 9, 2014 hearing the taxpayer’s counsel informed the court that he did not have instructions to proceed with the appeal, only to argue for an adjournment. The request for an adjournment was denied. The taxpayer himself did not appear.
The Court was not amused by this turn of events:
[25] On a review of this file, it appears to me that the Appellant was more interested in obtaining a Visa to enter Canada than he was in prosecuting his appeal. The Appellant was given numerous opportunities to proceed with his appeal and he chose instead to insist that the Court should assist him with obtaining a Visa to enter Canada. The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Court also awarded the Crown almost $10,000 in costs in light of the taxpayer’s inordinate delay in pursuing the appeal.