- within Tax topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in United States
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy and Property industries
Missed Deadlines for Objections and the Jurisdictional Bar of the One-Year Rule
The Income Tax Act sets strict deadlines for taxpayers to object to tax assessments or reassessments or request extensions. Under paragraph 165(1)(b), taxpayers—including individuals and corporations—must serve a notice of objection within 90 days of the assessment's mailing date. If that deadline passes, subsection 166.1(1) provides an additional one-year period for the CRA to consider an extension.
After exceeding this combined one-year-and-90-day timeframe, subsection 166.2(5) explicitly removes the Tax Court's authority to grant relief. These rules ensure finality in the objection process and place a significant burden of proof on taxpayers claiming they never received their assessments.
Many taxpayers are caught off guard by strict deadlines, believing that missing a filing date can be corrected later through correspondence or by demonstrating the delay was unintentional. However, the objection and appeal process under the Income Tax Act is governed by strict jurisdictional limits—once the statutory periods lapse, neither the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) nor the Tax Court has the authority to reopen them.
This limited discretion highlights Parliament's intent to promote certainty and administrative efficiency in tax administration. Yet, it also means that small businesses and self-represented taxpayers may inadvertently forfeit their right to contest a tax assessment simply because they failed to act within the prescribed period.
Understanding when the clock starts—and how the CRA establishes mailing—is a matter of fundamental practical importance in tax litigation, the first thing a knowledgeable Canadian tax lawyer will verify when retained by a taxpayer.
In Simon Ribbans Photography Inc. v. The King (2025 TCC 146), the taxpayer sought an extension to object to assessments for its 2020 and 2021 taxation years. The CRA's records showed that the notices of assessment were mailed on September 13, 2022, but the taxpayer only served its notice of objection on January 18, 2024, well past both the 90-day objection period and the one-year extension window.
The taxpayer argued that it never received the assessments and should not be penalized for filing late. Relying on detailed affidavits from CRA officers describing the Business Client Communication System (BCCS) and the agency's "Print-to-Mail" procedures, the Tax Court found that the assessments were mailed correctly and deemed received on the same date. Because the taxpayer had not applied to the CRA within one year and 90 days, Justice Ouimet held that the Court lacked jurisdiction to grant an extension.
This decision highlights the strict statutory nature of section 166.2 and the limited judicial discretion once filing deadlines pass. Even one day past the statutory period nullifies the right to object, whether or not the taxpayer actually received the assessment.
The ruling also demonstrates the evidentiary value of CRA affidavits prepared under subsection 244(10), which clearly establish a mailing presumption unless disputed by credible evidence. Taxpayers should keep their contact information up to date with the CRA and regularly check their online accounts to avoid missing important notices.
Consulting with a top Canadian tax lawyer immediately upon receiving or suspecting an assessment is crucial to safeguarding objection rights and ensuring that extension requests are filed within the strict legislative deadlines.
Business Operations and Administrative Risks
Before addressing the specific facts of Simon Ribbans, it is helpful to consider the context in which many small and medium-sized Canadian businesses—particularly those in creative industries, consulting, and professional services—operate.
These businesses often have limited administrative resources, depend heavily on external accountants, and may not consistently monitor their CRA correspondence or registered business address. In this environment, missing a notice or failing to monitor communication can lead to serious legal consequences.
The CRA's own administrative workload, especially within the Appeals Branch, worsens the situation: taxpayers might face delays or inconsistent communication, leading them to believe that critical deadlines can be later rectified through explanation or goodwill.
This administrative risk does not conflict with the statutory framework. However, it clarifies why many taxpayers fall into what could be called the "trap of forgetfulness"—the belief that a missed notice will be revisited or that an honest oversight can be corrected after the fact.
The design of the objection and extension regime, however, leaves no space for leniency. The law is designed for certainty, not flexibility. In this way, Simon Ribbans did not occur in isolation; it highlights the real-world vulnerabilities of small business taxpayers who, despite acting in good faith, are confronted with the strict rigidity of statutory deadlines once the CRA's mailing presumptions are triggered.
When Deadlines Don't Forgive
The decision in the Simon Ribbans case arose from a common but important procedural error: a small incorporated photography business missed the deadline to file its objection to the corporate income tax assessments. The CRA issued the assessments for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years on September 13, 2022, and mailed them to the address on file in Orléans, Ontario. Nearly sixteen months later, on January 18, 2024, the company finally submitted its notice of objection, long after the ninety-day deadline and outside the additional one-year extension period allowed.
The company sought relief directly from the Tax Court under section 166.2 of the Income Tax Act, which states that no application for an extension of time may be granted unless the taxpayer first applied to the CRA within one year after the original objection period expired. This provision effectively creates a jurisdictional barrier if the taxpayer fails to apply to the CRA within that combined one-year-and-ninety-day window. Navigating these rigid procedural rules requires careful timing and familiarity with CRA practice areas, where an experienced Canadian tax lawyer can provide essential guidance.
What followed was a comprehensive review of how the CRA proves mailing and how strictly the one-year-and-ninety-day rule limits judicial discretion. The Court examined affidavits from two CRA officers—one responsible for litigation records and another managing the agency's "Print-to-Mail" division in Prince Edward Island.
Their evidence described a highly automated system where assessment notices are printed, verified, sealed, and transferred to Canada Post in bulk. The Tax Court accepted this evidence as sufficient to activate the statutory presumptions of mailing and receipt under subsections 244(10), 244(14), and 248(7) of the Act.
Since the taxpayer had not applied to the CRA within the required timeframe, the Court found it lacked jurisdiction to grant an extension—once again demonstrating how procedural accuracy, not equitable considerations, governs the objection process in Canadian tax law.
The application was therefore dismissed without costs, emphasizing that even an unintentional lapse cannot be corrected once the statutory deadline has passed.
Pro Tax Tips – When Process Determines Outcome
The Simon Ribbans case illustrates how procedural rules can determine the outcome of a tax dispute well before substantive issues are addressed. The objection and appeal process under sections 165 to 169 of the Income Tax Act operates as a closed system of jurisdictional checkpoints.
Each step—serving the notice of objection, requesting an extension, and filing an appeal—must be completed within specific statutory deadlines. For practitioners, even a solid substantive argument on the tax issue cannot revive a late-filed objection once the one-year-and-ninety-day limit has passed.
The decision also enhances the CRA's procedural advantage in proving compliance with mailing requirements. The CRA can easily satisfy the burden of proof under subsection 244(10) by using detailed internal records, cycle reports, and standard affidavits.
Unless the taxpayer's Canadian tax litigation lawyer quickly challenges that evidence—by requesting full disclosure of the Business Client Communication System (BCCS) logs or cross-examining affiants—the presumption of mailing becomes nearly irrefutable. Therefore, effective advocacy in these cases depends equally on procedural tactics and substantive tax expertise.
FAQs – Objections, Deadlines, and CRA Mailing Presumptions
If I miss the 90-day objection deadline, can I still appeal to the Tax Court?
Not immediately. The first step is to apply to the CRA for an extension of time under subsection 166.1(1) of the Income Tax Act. This request must be made within one year after the 90-day objection period expires.
Only if that application is denied (or not decided within 90 days) can the taxpayer then apply to the Tax Court of Canada under section 166.2. Once that combined one-year-and-ninety-day window closes, however, the Tax Court has no jurisdiction to intervene — even if the taxpayer acted in good faith or never actually received the assessment.
What if I never received my Notice of Assessment — does that extend my filing deadline?
In most cases, no. Under subsections 244(10) and 248(7) of the Income Tax Act, a notice is deemed to have been received once it is properly addressed, stamped, and mailed by the CRA. The CRA can establish this by producing affidavit evidence describing its mailing systems and procedures. Unless the taxpayer can provide credible evidence showing that the document was not mailed or was misaddressed, the Court would assume it was received on the mailing date.
What practical steps can taxpayers take to avoid missing these deadlines?
Taxpayers should regularly monitor their CRA My Business Account, confirm that mailing addresses are current, and instruct accountants or bookkeepers to forward all CRA correspondence immediately. Where there is any uncertainty about an assessment's timing, filing a protective notice of objection within the 90 days is the safest approach.
Consultation with an expert Canadian tax lawyer can also ensure that objection rights are preserved and extension applications are properly filed before jurisdictional limits expire.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
