ACo’s 2011 to 2013 taxation years were arbitrarily assessed under s. 152(7). Eventually, it filed tax returns for those taxation years after the normal reassessment periods for those years, claiming additional deductions. ACo requested an extension of the s. 150(1) filing deadline for its 2011 to 2013 returns under s. 220(3) so that a reassessment could issue to reflect the increased deductions.
After noting that Bonnybrook had concluded that an s. 220(3) extension could enable a refund of tax under s. 129(1), the Directorate indicated that although the relevant wording of ss. 164(1) and 129(1) were almost identical, there was no equivalent to s. 164(1.5) in s. 129 and, in its view:
[S]ubsection 164(1.5) indicates Parliament’s intention with respect to when relief from the three-year limitation of subsection 164(1) can be granted. Therefore, if a taxpayer does not meet the conditions for relief under subsection 164(1.5), it is our view that no further relief under subsection 164(1) may be provided under subsection 220(3). In other words, the only relief from the three-year limitation in subsection 164(1) is to a “taxpayer is an individual (other than a trust) or a graduated rate estate for the year and the taxpayer's return of income under this Part for the year was filed on or before the day that is 10 calendar years after the end of the year”, the Minister cannot extend relief from the three-year requirement in subsection 164(1). For completeness, we note that for the same reasons, the Minister cannot extend the limitation period beyond ten years for taxpayers described in subsection 164(1.5).
The Directorate went on to indicate that the normal reassessment period could also not be extended in reliance on s. 152(4)(a)(i).