Bygrave – Federal Court of Appeal finds that reliance by the taxpayer on ignorant advice justified his delay in bringing a s. 167(5) extension application

The taxpayer was misinformed by his accountant that it was necessary to gather the necessary documentary proof before appealing an assessment which treated his condo gain as on income account, as well as imposing a s. 163(2) penalty. Pelletier JA found that, in this light, the failure of the taxpayer (acting through the same accountant) to bring a Court application for extension of the appeal deadline until 52 days past the appeal deadline nonetheless satisfied the test in s. 167(5)(b)(iii), that the extension application “was made…as soon as the circumstances permitted.”

Neal Armstrong. Summary of Bygrave v. The Queen, 2017 FCA 124 under s. 167(5)(b).