Canada v. Anchor Pointe Energy Ltd., 2003 DTC 5512, 2003 FCA 294 -- summary under Subsection 165(5)

By services, 28 November, 2015

After the Minister had assessed the predecessors of taxpayer on the basis that amounts paid by them to purchase seismic data exceeded the fair market value of the data, so that the full purchase price did not qualify as CEE, the taxpayer filed Notices of Objection. The Minister then issued Notifications of Confirmation which, based on the subsequently-decided decision in Global Communications, found that none of the purchase qualified for treatment as CEE (although the Minister did not purport to increase the tax payable by the taxpayer).

Rothstein J.A. stated (at para. 33) that he was "unable to agree" with the analysis of Rip J. in the Tax Court that the expiry of the normal reassessment period was stayed or extended until the Minister took action under s. 165(5) as "the implication of such an interpretation is that because a taxpayer files a Notice of Objection, the Minister has an unlimited time to reassess the taxpayer to increase tax payable after the normal reassessment period." Although s. 165(5) allowed the Minister to reassess after the expiry of the normal reassessment period where a Notice of Objection had been filed, in light of s. 152(5) the Minister could not so reassess as to include in the taxpayer's income amounts that were not included in an assessment or reassessment made within the normal reassessment period. Here, however, the effect of the Minister's Notice of Confirmation was not to include additional amounts in the taxpayer's income.

Topics and taglines
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
334947
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a id=\"AnchorPointe\"></a>The Queen v. Anchor Pointe Energy Ltd.</em></strong>, 2003 DTC 5512, 2003 FCA 294",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}