Federal Court


Tax

Goods and Services Tax

Rebates

Impugned wording in guide was not incorrect or inaccurate

Taxpayer was joint owner of owner-built house on which substantial construction was completed in August 2014. Taxpayer read New Housing Rebate guide, and as her home exceeded $450,000 value, she thought she was ineligible for both federal and provincial rebate. After taxpayer made further inquiries, she realized value of her home did not preclude her from receiving provincial rebate, and taxpayer submitted her application over two months after application was due and requested extension of time. Minister refused her request for extension of time three times, explaining that taxpayer had not provided extraordinary circumstances, she had not presented error or delay on behalf of Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and that guide explained in two locations that provincial rebate may be available where federal rebate was not. Taxpayer brought application for judicial review. Application dismissed. It was found that Minister’s decision was reasonable based on information available and it was proper exercise of discretion granted pursuant to s. 256(3)(b) of Excise Tax Act. There were no circumstances beyond control of taxpayer that prevented her from applying within prescribed time period. There were no actions of any employee of CRA that caused delay to taxpayer. Impugned wording in guide was not incorrect or inaccurate, albeit it could have been more clearly articulated.

Lachance v. Canada (National Revenue) (2018), 2018 CarswellNat 5209, 2018 CarswellNat 5290, 2018 FC 925, 2018 CF 925, Michael D. Manson J. (F.C.).

cover image

DIGITAL EDITION

Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll


Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?
RESULTS ❯