Boyle J found that the taxpayer’s transactions had subjected it to a liability under s. 160 for the tax liability of a person with whom it was found by him not to have been dealing at arm’s length. The s. 160 assessment had been made of it beyond the normal reassessment period, as permitted by s. 160(2). Boyle J went on to find that, that if s. 160 had not applied, then the taxpayer would have been liable for the assessment made on it, in the alternative, under s. 245(2). In rejecting the taxpayer’s submission that the assessment of it under s. 245(2) was statute-barred because it was made beyond the normal reassessment period, Boyle J stated (at paras. 218-220):
There is nothing to suggest [s. 245] requires a limited assessment period to achieve its legislative rationale given its object, spirit and purpose, or that its application may be different depending upon the provisions being abused. …
[T]here is no “normal reassessment period” applicable to the application of the GAAR … . The only requirement is that GAAR be involved or taken into account in a timely and otherwise validly issued assessment under the Act.