Ruling accepts revenue officer gave taxpayer incorrect information on right to object
In a taxpayer’s appeal against a reassessment, the Federal Court of Appeal acknowledged that he received incorrect information about his right to object, but found that this did not give him a substantive right to appeal prohibited by statute.
Siam v. Canada, 2026 FCA 91, involved s. 152(4.2) of the Income Tax Act, 1985, which allowed the minister of national revenue to reassess if a taxpayer applied for a tax refund or reduction within 10 years from the end of the relevant tax year. Meanwhile, s. 165(1.2) prohibited objections to these reassessments.
Here, the taxpayer appealed an Aug. 18, 2023, notice of reassessment regarding his 2016 tax year. He alleged that s. 152(4.2) did not apply as the normal assessment period had not ended. He added that the normal assessment period did not commence in 2018 because he did not receive an Apr. 19, 2018, assessment until a later date.
The respondent moved to quash the appeal. In May 2025, the Tax Court of Canada granted the motion.
The Tax Court determined that the appeal could not proceed as the appellant’s required notice of objection was invalid. The Tax Court found that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) issued the 2023 reassessment after the end of the normal assessment period and under s. 152(4.2).
The Tax Court explained that the 2023 reassessment fell within s. 152(4.2) because the normal assessment period ended on Apr. 19, 2021, three years after the 2018 notice of assessment concerning the appellant’s same tax year.
The Tax Court noted that the appellant had the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, the non-sending of the notice of the original assessment. Upon addressing two avenues for asserting the non-sending of the 2018 assessment, the Tax Court found the appellant’s evidence for both not credible.
The appellant appealed. He accepted that he eventually received the 2018 assessment. However, he argued that the Tax Court erroneously presumed a mailing date. He added that the respondent’s affiant confirmed the issuance of the 2018 assessment but did not confirm its actual mailing.
Reassessment affirmed
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed this appeal with costs. The appeal court upheld the Tax Court’s finding that the appellant likely knew about the 2018 assessment in 2019 at the latest, which sufficiently supported its conclusion that the normal assessment period had ended by 2023.
The appeal court addressed the appellant’s arguments. First, the appeal court rejected his assertion that he provided credible evidence on the mailing or non-mailing of the 2018 assessment. Describing this argument as a challenge to the Tax Court’s weighing of the evidence, the appeal court saw no palpable and overriding error to interfere with such weighing.
Second, the appeal court saw no error in the Tax Court’s presumption of a mailing date upon considering the wording of the respondent’s affidavit and the 2023 reassessment.
Third, the appeal court disagreed with the appellant’s argument that the Tax Court misapplied the framework for assessing a claim of non-sending of a notice of assessment in Mpamugo v. The Queen, 2016 TCC 215, by improperly disregarding his evidence and by finding a lack of credibility before fully analyzing the evidentiary record.
The appeal court ruled that the Tax Court appropriately:
- considered the credibility of the appellant’s evidence alleging the non-mailing of the 2018 assessment
- held that he failed to meet his burden at the first step of the Mpamugo test
- found that it did not need to continue assessing the test’s subsequent steps
Finally, the appeal court rejected the appellant’s argument that he did not receive procedural fairness because the 2023 reassessment and the CRA officer in charge of his case confirmed that he could object to the reassessment and thus legitimately expected that he could appeal the reassessment before the Tax Court.
Given the incorrect information received by the appellant, the appeal court acknowledged that the CRA could consider reviewing the relevant practices.
However, the appeal court emphasized that the legitimate expectations doctrine could only impact procedural rights. The appeal court added that a substantive right to appeal prohibited by statute did not arise from the information received from the 2023 reassessment and the CRA officer.
