Kutlu v. Canada, 2013 DTC 5137 [at at 6239] -- summary under Subsection 220(3)

By services, 28 November, 2015

The Minister had previously accepted the taxpayers' late-filed elections under s. 216(4). The taxpayers had believed they were entitled to file late because they had no taxable income in the years in question. The Minister then rejected one of the late-filed elections, and rejected the taxpayer's application for a discretionary extension of time.

Joyal J granted the taxpayer's application to have the matter sent back to the Minister. An extension of time is not confined only to circumstances that preclude a taxpayer from complying with deadlines (i.e. extraordinary circumstances). It is therefore no answer to an extension application to say that the election was filed late, as this is merely begging the question.

Topics and taglines
Tagline
discretion to extend s. 216(4) deadline
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
336393
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Kutlu v. MNR</em></strong>, 2013 DTC 5137 [at 6239], FC Docket No. T-205-96 <strong>[discretion to extend s. 216(4) deadline]</strong>",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}