Section 166.1

Table of Contents

See Also

Topping v. The Queen, 2014 DTC 1012 [at 2548], 2013 TCC 246

letter could not be construed as extension request

Woods J found that a letter from the taxpayer to CRA, indicating that his assessments were being appealed, that he was working with his accountant, and that he would keep them informed, could not reasonably be construed as an application for an extension of time.

Newfoundland Transshipment Ltd v. The Queen, 2013 DTC 1111, 2013 TCC 259

no obligation to reassess amended return

After the normal reassessment period for assessing its 2002 to 2005 taxation years had passed, the taxpayer requested the Minister to reassess those years to allow capital cost allowance for its pipelines on the basis they were Class 6 rather than Class 1 assets. In denying the taxpayer's application for an extension of the time to file notices of objection for those years, D'Auray J stated (at para. 21):

[T]he Minister does not have to accept or act upon an amended return and reassess a taxpayer.

Lambo v. The Queen, 2011 DTC 1236 [at 1364], 2011 TCC 293

Little J. granted the taxpayer's s. 166.1 application. The taxpayer had filed a notice of objection within the ordinary objection period, and did not file her objection within that period only because she had been misled by a CRA Chief of Appeals to believe that she was supposed to wait to be contacted by a CRA officer before proceeding. Moreover CRA had mailed the Taxpayer's notices of reassessment to her former address. In the circumstances, denying the taxpayer's extension would be unconscionable.

Administrative Policy

Tax Professionals Mini Round Table - Vancouver - Q. 29 (March 1993 Access Letter, p. 110)

Discussion of criteria employed in reviewing applications under s. 166.1.