Cases
Coombs v. CRA, 2013 DTC 5023 [at 5612], 2012 FC 1499
Manson J. dismissed the taxpayer's application to quash a Requirement To Pay from CRA, as challenges to the validity of a tax assessment are a matter for the Tax Court.
Articles
Khashayar Haghgouyan, "Narrowing of the Collection Restrictions - Set-Off Can Occur!", CCH Tax Topics, No. 4 1901, 14 August 2008, p. 1.
Subsection 225.1(2) - No action by Minister
Cases
(Re) Arif, 2011 DTC 5173 [at 6284], 2011 FC 1000
Shore J. granted the Minister's s. 225.1(2) application. The Court was informed that the taxpayer had been involved in cocaine trafficking, for which he was likely to receive a lengthy sentence, he had recently liquidated immovable assets, he transferred the family home to his spouse without consideration and she put the residence up for sale, and he had grossly under-reported his income for several taxation years despite making large purchases and disbursements from his bank accounts.
Subsection 225.1(3) - Idem [No action by Minister]
Cases
Cormier v. The Queen, 91 DTC 5159 (FCTD)
S.225.1(3), which was added applicable to "notices of assessment" mailed after 1984, did not apply where a reassessment was issued in 1983, and a notice of confirmation issued in 1984. Because a notice of confirmation does not effect any change to an assessment, it is not itself an assessment.
O'Sullivan v. The Queen, 90 DTC 6278 (FCTD)
The taxpayer, after filing notices of objection in 1984 to reassessments by Revenue Canada, filed a Notice of Appeal to the Tax Court pursuant to s. 165(7) to reassessments dated December 16, 1985. Collier J. held that filing the Notice of Appeal met the requirement under the transitional rules that the taxpayer had "objected" to the reassessments after 1984, notwithstanding that the Notices of Objection were filed in 1984. "[T]here is nothing in the context of the legislation in this case, which would lead me to find that the word 'object', or objection, is used in a technical sense instead of in its ordinary and grammatical sense." (p.6281)
Administrative Policy
86 C.R. - Q.85
the filing of a bona fide objection does not delay the time for remitting taxes that have been deducted.
Subsection 225.1(4) - Idem [No action by Minister]
Administrative Policy
IC98-1R4 "Tax Collections Policies" 12 June 2013
We will accept adequate security instead of payment under some circumstances. For example, if the Tax Court of Canada or the Canadian International Trade Tribunal dismisses your appeal and you exercise your right to appeal to a higher court, we will ask you to immediately pay the full amount owing regardless of your further rights to appeal. However, we will accept adequate security instead of payment, such as a bank letter of guarantee, a bank letter of credit, or mortgages.
Subsection 225.1(5) - Idem [No action by Minister]
Cases
Doyle v. MNR, 89 DTC 5483 (FCTD)
A letter of abeyance signed by a tax return preparer as agent for a taxpayer who previously had signed his notice of objection personally, was held to be valid.
The Minister had implied power to delegate his responsibilities under the section notwithstanding the lack of reference to s. 225.1(5) in Regulation 900.
Subsection 225.1(6) - Where ss. (1) to (4) do not apply
Paragraph 225.1(6)(b)
Administrative Policy
30 January 2014 Memorandum 2012-0460181I7 - Application of paragraph 225.1(6)(b)
A non-resident disposes of a taxable Canadian property and files a T2062 and discloses that Part XIII tax has not been withheld and remitted with respect to rental income. CRA stated:
[W]ith respect to an assessment issued to the non-resident recipient in respect of the amount of Part XIII tax that should have been withheld by the payor, it is our view that paragraph 225.1(6)(b) would not be applicable because the Part XIII tax is not an amount of tax that the non-resident was required to withhold and remit.