Subsection 334(1) - Sending by Mail
Cases
Canada v. Schafer, 2000 DTC 6542 (FCA)
The appellant had been found by the trial judge not to have received a notice of assessment. The Court found that the "sent" wording of s. 301(1.1) was clear and unambiguous, and that therefore there is not requirement that the notice be received in order to start the limitation running. The Court found that even if s. 301(1.1) had not applied to start the limitation period running from the date of mailing of the notice of assessment, s. 334(1) applied to deem the respondent to have received the notice of assessment on the date of mailing.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 301 - Subsection 301(1.1) | 52 | |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(7) | 34 | |
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Interpretation/Definition Provisions | "deems" is irrebuttable | 68 |
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Resolving Ambiguity | 57 |
See Also
Morgan v. The King, 2025 TCC 36 (Informal Procedure)
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 January 31, 2022, when it stamped it as received. 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 (at para. 41):
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 … .
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Regulations - New Harmonized Value-Added Tax System Regulations, No. 2 - Section 46 - Subsection 46(6) - Paragraph 46(6)(a) | evidence of taxpayer’s accountant accepted as to when she mailed the rebate application | 365 |
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 256 - Subsection 256(2) | substantial completion of home renovation occurred on municipal inspection approval | 196 |
| Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 248 - Subsection 248(7) - Paragraph 248(7)(a) | CRA presumption that application was mailed no more than 5 business days before stamped as received by CRA mailroom, was rejected | 63 |