Morgan – Tax Court of Canada accepts that an application was mailed one month before its stamping as received by the CRA mailroom

Whether the taxpayer had timely filed his application for the Ontario component of the new housing rebate pursuant to ETA s. 256.21(1) for his newly-renovated home turned on when the substantial renovation had been “substantially completed” (which started the running pursuant to s. 46(6) of the New Harmonized Value Added Tax System Regulations of the two year period for filing the application) and on when the application was filed (which, pursuant to s. 334(1) was deemed to be the mailing date).

Yuan J accepted the Crown’s position that the substantial completion date was the date when the local town conducted its final inspection of the property.

Regarding the application’s mailing date, Yuan J was underwhelmed by CRA’s application of an administrative presumption that mail was sent five business days before its receipt by the CRA mailroom, and indicated that he was not satisfied that the application was actually received by the CRA mailroom on the date of stamping on January 31, 2022. He preferred the evidence of the taxpayer’s accountant, who testified that she had mailed various client related items on December 31, 2021 and who provided a Canada post receipt dated December 31, 2021 for two items which showed that a piece of letter mail had been sent to the Sudbury TSO. Before allowing the taxpayers appeal, Yuan J stated:

I have difficulty imagining what better evidence the CRA could reasonably expect an applicant to produce as proof of filing where the application was submitted by regular mail … .

Neal Armstrong. Summary of Morgan v. The King, 2025 TCC 36 under s. 46(6)(a) of the New Harmonized Value Added Tax System Regulations, No. 2.