The appellants brought a motion to strike certain assumptions of fact from the Minister's replies to their notices of appeal.
The assumptions related to the use of 'zapping' software to suppress sales and the Minister's use of the ECAS algorithm to estimate the unreported income.
The appellants argued the algorithm was exclusively within the Minister's knowledge and the burden of proof should shift.
The Tax Court dismissed the motion, holding that the core assumed facts were that the appellants deleted transactions and underreported income, which the appellants could disprove at trial using their own records.
The motion to strike was premature.
