“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 daily newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please complete the form below and click on subscribe for daily newsletters from Law Times.

Recent articles & video

Amid enactment of sweeping law enforcement Bill C-75, LSO seeks status quo for students, paralegals

LSO must stand up for racialized licensees, says prospective returning bencher

OBA summit to bring together legal sector equality advocates

Federal government names Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization officers

Baker McKenzie adds senior tech strength to global M&A team

Alexander Holburn opens Toronto office

Most Read Articles

Appeal court ‘withdraws’ real estate decision after it was signed in error

Challenges continue for legal aid practitioners despite funding boost from Ottawa

Province should be cautious using ADR for domestic violence cases, say lawyers

Canadian law firms spending more on legal tech, says Thomson Reuters