What kinds of cases are you looking for?   
< Previous Case Next Case >

Income tax — another refund where return filed late

My client was a large U.S. company with a division in Canada. In its taxation year ended March 31, 1998, it paid instalments of almost $250,000 towards its Canadian federal corporate income tax.

Because of delays in resolving a Revenue Canada audit of earlier taxation years (which affected balances being carried forward to 1998), the company did not file its Canadian income tax return for the 1997-98 year until September 2001. When it did, it had no tax owing for the year.

The Canada Customs & Revenue Agency issued a Notice of Assessment showing that the company was entitled to a refund of $250,000. However, it refused to pay the refund because subsection 164(3) of the Income Tax Act provides for a refund to be paid only if the tax return is filed within 3 years of the taxation year end.

I had solved this problem for another company in the past (see "Income tax — refund where returns filed late"), and had explained the solution in my Notes to subsection 164(3) in the Practitioner's Income Tax Act. The company's tax manager read my Notes and asked the CCRA to transfer the refund balance to another year as explained in my Notes. The CCRA refused, based on an interpretation from Headquarters that disagreed with my published Notes. The company approached me for help.

I wrote to the Director of the CCRA's International Tax Services Office, explaining the situation in detail. The delay had resulted from the length of time the CCRA had taken to audit earlier years. I explained carefully that the CCRA needed to make it clear, in writing, why it was refusing to transfer the balance to another year. If the CCRA determined it did not have legal authority to do so, the company would seek judicial review in the Federal Court of that determination, since in my view it was legally wrong. I explained carefully why the interpretation from Headquarters was technically flawed, using supporting material from the case law, the Department of Finance and the history of the legislation.

I also provided detailed submissions to show that it would be appropriate for the CCRA to exercise its discretion to transfer the balance, and that this would be consistent with the CCRA's treatment of my previous client. The company had acted reasonably throughout, had voluntarily paid the instalments in question, and should not be punished for doing so.

The CCRA agreed, and the company received its $250,000 refund.

Money recovered!

(2002)