Poulin v. The Queen, 2013 DTC 1102 [at at 545], 2013 TCC 104 -- summary under Subsection 244(10)

By services, 28 November, 2015

Hershfield J found that the Minister's affidavit was inadequate to establish under s. 244(10) that the taxpayer's Notice of Objection had been filed after the applicable deadline, chiefly because the affidavit dealt with the wrong tax centre. The Minister's affidavit was based on the timestamp for the Notice's arrival at the Burnaby-Fraser Tax Services Office, rather than the tax centre in Surrey, BC where the taxpayer had sent the Notice. The taxpayer's own testimony as to the mailing date was credible. Hershfield J therefore granted the taxpayer's application to extend the time to file a Notice of Objection.

In reaching this conclusion, Hershfield J noted that the situation was analogous to Carcone, which dealt with a Notice of Assessment. Hershfield J stated (at para. 27):

The onus is not different in regard to the date of receipt of a notice of objection. Only the CRA would be possessed of such information.

Topics and taglines
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
336915
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a name=\"Poulin\"></a>Poulin v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2013 DTC 1102 [at 545], 2013 TCC 104",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}