“Prescribed information” not included with new housing rebate application

Tax - Goods and Services Tax - Rebates

Registrant and spouse entered into assignment of agreement of purchase and sale with builder for acquisition of condominium property and then entered into lease agreement with two tenants. Registrant took legal possession of property and neither he nor his qualifying relations were first to occupy premises as their primary place of residence. Registrant signed GST/HST New Housing Rebate (New Housing Rebate) application form and received credit on closing of $27,239. Builder submitted New Housing Rebate application form to Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) approximately 22 months after date of closing. Registrant filed GST/HST New Residential Rental Property Rebate (Rental Rebate) form with cover letter dated January 28, 2015. Minister of National Revenue issued Notice of Assessment denying New Housing Rebate on February 13, 2015 and registrant did not file notice of objection to assessment. Minister then issued Notice of Assessment denying Rental Rebate, to which registrant objected, and assessment was confirmed. Registrant appealed. Appeal dismissed. Lease agreement was best evidence as to registrant’s true intentions for purposes of analysis. Registrant did not meet requirements of s. 254(2)(g) of Excise Tax Act. Registrant was not entitled to New Housing Rebate, and assessment of February 13, 2015 was correct in law and in fact. Final date for filing of Rental Rebate application was April 30, 2014. Minister acted “with all due dispatch” during two months that followed receipt of application from builder. Since there was no indication in New Housing Rebate application that property had been rented and no mention of duration of rental period, it seemed apparent that this was much more than mere “deviation” and that registrant could not be said to have “complied substantially” with requirements of s. 256.2 of Act. It was clear that “prescribed information” required to support Rental Rebate application was not included with New Housing Rebate application.

Poirier v. The Queen (2019), 2019 CarswellNat 85, 2019 TCC 8, Guy R. Smith J. (T.C.C. [General Procedure]).

Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca

Free newsletter

Our newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

List of changes proposed by AG Downey in bill 161

Questions remain on funding sustainability in legal clinic system

Judges to receive training on human trafficking

New criminal law program targets high school students

Advocates’ Society mourns passing of former president Ted Rachlin

Canadian lawyers Brian Cohen and Rhonda Rudick join the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel

Most Read Articles

Judiciary’s comments on women come to fore

Appeal court frees catastrophically injured from ‘absurd,’ ‘Kafkaesque’ rule

Federal Crowns to get payout from Phoenix pay system

Free online programs launched by Ryerson’s Legal Innovation Zone