Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Minister erroneously added the amounts from the original and amended 2019 T4A slips, resulting in an inflated reassessment of $108,332.18.

• The CRA posted the Notice of Reassessment to the Applicant’s secure online “My Business Account” on October 12, 2022, starting the 90-day objection period.

• No notice of objection was served within the 90-day period, and no application for an extension was filed within the one-year deadline following that period.

• The Applicant failed to rebut CRA records showing multiple viewings of the Notice of Reassessment, and provided inconsistent and unsupported testimony.

• Despite acknowledging the CRA’s “stupid mistake,” the Court held it lacked discretion to grant relief due to statutory time limits.

• The application was dismissed because the requirements of paragraph 166.2(5)(a) of the Income Tax Act were not met.

Facts of the case

Amarpal Singh, a realtor in Delta, British Columbia, operated through a personal real estate corporation, Amarpal Singh Personal Real Estate Corporation (the “Applicant”). In 2019, the Applicant received commission income solely from Nationwide Realty Corp. in Surrey, B.C. Nationwide issued a T4A for $53,257.84 and subsequently issued an Amended T4A for $55,074.34, both addressed to the Applicant.

Rather than treating the Amended T4A as a replacement, the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) mistakenly added the two T4A amounts together, resulting in an erroneous reassessment of the Applicant’s 2019 income as $108,332.18.

On August 26, 2022, the Canada Revenue Agency (the “CRA”) sent the Applicant a letter proposing to reassess based on $108,331 in T4A income. Mr. Singh testified that he called the letter’s author at least twice and was verbally assured that only the Amended T4A amount would be considered. However, he kept no notes of these conversations. According to the CRA’s affidavit, the Notice of Reassessment was posted to the Applicant’s secure online account on October 12, 2022. Mr. Singh denied seeing the notice but offered inconsistent testimony and could not explain multiple viewings of the notice recorded by CRA on November 25, 2022, August 18, 2023, September 20, 2023, and March 18, 2024.

Policy terms and statutory provisions

The relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act governed the objection timeline:

• Paragraph 165(1)(b) provided the Applicant with 90 days—from October 12, 2022, to January 10, 2023—to serve a notice of objection.

• Paragraph 166.1(7)(a) allowed an additional year—from January 10, 2023, to January 10, 2024—to apply to the Minister for an extension of time.

• Subsection 244(14.2) deemed the Notice of Reassessment “sent” when posted to the secure electronic account.

The Applicant did not serve a notice of objection within 90 days, nor did it apply for an extension within the one-year grace period. Instead, it attempted to serve a notice of objection on March 24, 2024, which was too late. There was also a document upload attempt by the Applicant’s tax preparer and bookkeeper on February 13 or 14, 2024, but this too fell outside the statutory timeline.

Outcome and judicial reasoning

Justice David E. Spiro of the Tax Court of Canada dismissed the application for an extension of time to serve a notice of objection. The Court acknowledged that the Minister made a “stupid mistake” by double-counting the T4A amounts. However, it held that the statutory deadlines under the Act were clear and binding.

In particular, the Court referenced Riley v The Queen, 2012 TCC 208, reaffirming that it had no discretion to grant the application unless both conditions under paragraph 166.2(5)(a) and (b) were met. Since the Applicant failed to apply for an extension within the permitted one-year period, the Court was barred from granting relief.

Ultimately, the application was dismissed without costs.