Lachance – Federal Court finds that CRA could refuse an extension to a taxpayer confused by a CRA Guide

The GST/HST Guide on the new housing rebate indicated that an Ontario new housing rebate was available in circumstances where the federal rebate would have been available but for the value of the new home having been over $450,000. The taxpayer stated she was confused by the somewhat unpacked statement to this effect, and did not realize until shortly after the two year deadline for applying for the Ontario rebate that, in fact, she had earned it.

CRA denied her extension request on the grounds that the Guide disclosure was not inaccurate – and none of the other published grounds for taxpayer relief were met. Manson J stated that he had “sympathy for the Applicant’s position that the language in the Guide could be more clearly articulated,” but nonetheless dismissed her application for review of the extension refusal, stating that the CRA conclusion “that the [Guide] language does not mislead or misinform, is reasonable.”

The language in ETA s. 256(3)(b) providing for an extension for applying for the new housing rebate to any “date that the Minister may allow” is similar to the provision for the extension of the (very short) deadline in s. 167(1.1) for filing a s. 167 election to “such later date as the Minister may determine on application of the recipient.” Would it be a reviewable error for the Minister to decline an extension under s. 167(1.1) on the grounds that there was no natural disaster, serious illness, or CRA fault?

Neal Armstrong. Summary of Lachance v. Canada (National Revenue), 2018 FC 925 under s. 256(3)(b).