The Consequences of Missing CRA Appeal Deadlines: Amarpal Singh Personal Real Estate Corporation v The King

In Amarpal Singh Personal Real Estate Corporation v The King, 2025 TCC 38, Justice Spiro emphasized the critical importance of meeting deadlines under the Income Tax Act (“ITA”). The case underscores how missed deadlines can leave taxpayers bearing the burden of costly errors by the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”).

Key Deadlines for Filing a Notice of Objection

Under subsection 165(1)(b) of the ITA , a taxpayer has ninety (90) days from the date of the Notice of (Re)Assessment issued by the CRA  to file a Notice of Objection. If a taxpayer misses the ninety (90) day deadline,  subsection 166.1(7)(a) of the ITA  allows the taxpayer to file an Extension of Time Application within one (1) year of the initial ninety (90) day deadline.

Case Facts

Mr. Amarpal Singh, a British Columbia-based realtor, operated through his corporation, Amarpal Singh Personal Real Estate Corporation. In 2019, Mr. Singh was issued a T4A: Statement of Pension, Retirement, Annuity, and Other Income in the amount of $53,257.84. He was subsequently issued an Amended T4A in the amount of $55,074.34. The Amended T4A should have replaced the original T4A, however the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”), in an unbelievable error, added both amounts, effectively doubling Mr. Singh’s reported income to $108,331.

CRA Correspondence 

On August 26, 2022, Mr. Singh received a letter from the CRA proposing to reassess his income. Despite clarifying the CRA’s mistake during a phone conversation, no notes of this discussion were recorded. Subsequently, the CRA issued a Notice of Reassessment on October 12, 2022.

Mr. Singh had until January 10, 2024, to file an Extension of Time Application and a Notice of Objection. Unfortunately, he missed this deadline and only attempted to file a Notice of Objection on March 24, 2024 —past the allowable time to object under the ITA.

Governing Law

Justice Spiro relied on Riley v The Queen, 2012 TCC 208, specifically:

[8] Unfortunately there is no discretion to extend the deadlines as set out in the ITA and the provisions of subsection 166.2(5) of the ITA are clear that no application may be granted by this Court unless both the requirements of paragraph (a) and (b) are satisfied. In this case the Applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 166.2(5)(a) of the ITA. [emphasis added]

Application

Mr. Singh’s failure to file an Extension of Time Application rendered his Notice of Objection invalid, effectively closing his opportunity to dispute the erroneous reassessment. Although Justice Spiro acknowledged the CRA’s mistake, going as far as calling it “stupid,” he had no legal authority to override the statutory deadlines set out in the ITA. As a result, despite the CRA’s error, Mr. Singh remained liable for the incorrect reassessment. This outcome highlights the strict nature of tax deadlines and the limited discretion courts have in extending them.

Key Takeaways

This case underscores the inflexible nature of tax deadlines and the serious repercussions of missing them. Taxpayers must diligently track filing deadlines following a Notice of (Re)Assessment to safeguard their appeal rights. Even when the CRA makes a clear error, failing to respond within the required timeframe can leave taxpayers with limited options. Acting promptly and seeking guidance from a tax lawyer as soon as an incorrect Notice is received is vital to ensuring your rights are protected and mistakes are addressed efficiently.

 

***Disclaimer: This article provides information of a general nature only. It does not provide legal advice nor can it or should it be relied upon. All tax situations are specific to their facts and will differ from the situations in this article. If you have specific legal questions, you should consult a lawyer.