Brulé,
T.C.J.:
—This
is
an
application
for
extension
of
time
to
file
a
notice
of
objection.
The
application
was
made
at
the
same
time
as
filing
the
notice
of
objection
some
three
months
after
the
90-day
statutory
period.
Facts
The
applicant
is
the
executrix
and
daughter
of
the
late
Ernest
C.F.
Fraser.
After
the
latter's
death,
there
was
included
as
an
asset
of
the
estate
a
capital
gain
on
a
disposition
of
1000
E.C.
Fraser
Oil
Ltd.
Class
B
shares
of
some
546,696.
The
Minister
increased
this
amount
by
$300,000
by
way
of
a
reassessment
on
October
9,
1987.
In
the
hope
of
settling
the
matter
the
applicant
agreed
to
the
reassessment
and
paid
the
sum
of
$88,663.94
in
tax,
interest
and
penalties.
This
was
done
after
deciding
that
an
engineering
study
to
verify
values
would
prove
too
costly,
even
though
it
appeared
that
Revenue
Canada
was
prepared
to
await
such
a
study.
Payment
was
made
within
the
90-day
period
during
which
an
objection
might
have
been
taken.
At
about
the
time
of
deadline
for
filing
an
objection,
but
after
paying
the
reassessment,
the
applicant
became
aware
that
there
was
good
reason
to
object
to
the
increased
assessment.
The
applicant
obtained
production
forecasts
and
then
realized
that
she
should
object.
The
result
was
the
late
filing
of
the
notice
and
the
application
to
extend
the
time
for
late
filing
of
the
notice.
Analysis
The
problem
arising
from
these
facts
is
whether
or
not
a
taxpayer
who
accepts
a
reassessment
in
good
faith,
and
in
particular
after
conferences
with
Revenue
Canada,
can
have
a
change
of
thought
and
file
a
notice
of
objection.
This
situation
has
not
arisen
often
but
was
considered
in
the
case
of
Richmond
Country
Club
v.
M.N.R.,
[1984]
C.T.C.
2108;
84
D.T.C.
1088.
There
a
taxpayer
reported
certain
income
on
its
tax
return.
The
taxpayer
was
assessed
and
after
the
90-day
objection
period
it
was
doubted
that
the
income
should
have
been
taxed
and
the
taxpayer
applied
for
an
extension
of
time
to
file
a
notice
of
objection.
The
Court
held
that
it
could
not
grant
an
extension
of
time
where
the
taxpayer
had
no
objection
to
the
assessment
during
the
90-day
period.
Here
it
is
obvious
that
the
applicant
had
no
objection
to
the
reassessment
during
the
90-day
period
and
this
is
supported
by
the
fact
that
the
additional
amount
of
tax
was
paid.
As
Taylor,
T.C.J.
said
in
the
Richmond
Country
Club
case,
supra,
that
the
major
purpose
of
subsection
167(5)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
is
to
require
immediate,
serious
and
virtually
final
consideration
of
the
assessment
when
it
is
received.
This
was
done
by
Miss
Fraser
without
an
objection.
The
result
is
that
this
application
is
dismissed.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content