Subsection 160.1(1) - Where excess refunded
See Also
Ashton v. The Queen, 2012 DTC 1292 [at 3912], 2012 TCC 353
Pursuant to s. 160.1, the Minister reassessed the taxpayer to effect the return of refunds that the taxpayer claimed and was not entitled to. The taxpayer appealed on the basis that she had been the victim of identity theft, and had not claimed the false refunds herself. The Minister argued that the Tax Court's jurisdiction over refunds is restricted to the determination of the amount of refunds payable, and not over whether refunds or returns of refunds were in fact owed.
Boyle J. found that the Tax Court did have jurisdiction over refunds owed. He stated (at para. 3):
[The] wording in section 160.1, and the express conferral of appeal jurisdiction on this Court in subsection 160.1(3), indicates Parliament intended this Court to have jurisdiction to decide if the excess amounts were refunded to a taxpayer.
He also stated that this finding was "largely moot," given the unlikelihood, in this day and age, that a person could do as the taxpayer had alleged - walk into tax preparer's office with a forged signature and driver's licence, and collect false refunds (para. 10).