Donald Methuen Fleming
That explanation does not cover the whole ground of my objection by any means. I do not know whether the minister followed the point I am trying to make. The proposed new section 52, subsection 1, will completely eliminate any right on the part of the taxpayer to a refund, even if otherwise completely entitled thereto, unless he makes application in writing for it. There are two requirements attached to his right to receive a refund. The first is that he must make his return of income within the stipulated period, and he must make application in writing for the refund. In his explanation it seems to me that the minister has not given any reason for departing from the present rule as found in the present section 52, subsection 1, of the act. Surely in cases of this kind what we want to do is to see that anybody who has overpaid his tax receives his refund, and not to set up more requirements which make it very easy for someone to overlook the fact that he must make his application in writing within the stipulated period. Surely what we wish to do is to see to it that everybody who has overpaid receives his refund with a minimum of administrative obstacles put in his way. If we wish to we can strangle this right by applying a whole lot of requirements with regard to the method by which the application for the refund must be made.