2020 FCA 125, 2020 FCA 125

A-186-19 2020 FCA 125 Her Majesty the Queen ( Appellant ) v . 984274 Alberta Inc. ( Respondent ) Indexed as: Canada v. 984274 Alberta Inc. Federal Court of Appeal, Noël C.J., Boivin and Rivoalen JJ.A.—By videoconference, June 3; Ottawa, July 28, 2020.

Income Tax –– Assessment and Reassessment — Appeal from Tax Court of Canada judgment allowing appeal, vacating assessment issued by Minister of National Revenue under Income Tax Act pertaining to respondent’s 2003 taxation year — Tax Court concluding assessment dated March 23, 2015 (2015 assessment) not validly issued on basis assessment issued beyond normal reassessment period — Respondent incorporated under laws of Alberta as wholly owned subsidiary of Henro Holdings Corporation — Henro transferring to respondent 84 acres of land — Both Henro, respondent considering land to be capital property — Later that day, respondent selling land to arm’s length party; distributing part of proceeds to Henro by payment of capital dividends — In computing income for taxation year ended March 31, 2003, respondent reporting taxable capital gain of $3 952 238 resulting from sale of land — In June 2003, Minister issuing notice of assessment levying $1 809 598 in taxes (2003 assessment) — Later that year, notice of reassessment issued for same taxation year, leaving initial assessment unaltered, acknowledging full receipt of tax payable for year (2003 reassessment) — Thus, normal reassessment period for respondent’s 2003 taxation year ending in June 2006 — In 2007, Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) advising Henro of intention to reassess its 2003 through 2007 taxation years on basis that land transferred to respondent was inventory rather than capital property; CRA refunding taxes respondent paid on capital gain reported for 2003 taxation year — CRA assessing, reassessing Henro given excessive capital dividend paid by Henro to shareholders as result of treatment of land as inventory — Because of assessments, land transferred to respondent during 2003 taxation year deemed by Act , s. 69 to have been acquired at fair market value; thus, no income generated by respondent on arm’s length sale — Minister, by notice of reassessment issued in 2010 (2010 reassessment or nil assessment), reducing taxable capital gain reported by respondent for its 2003 taxation year from $3 952 238 to nil; refunding respondent $2 577 231 representing taxes paid on reported taxable capital gain in 2003, plus refund interest — Respondent accepting 2010 payment — After CRA confirming various reassessments, assessments against Henro, Henro filing appeal before Tax Court — CRA, Henro executing agreement settling outstanding appeal before Tax Court — Agreement co-signed by respondent, who, although not party to appeal at issue, party to agreement — Under settlement agreement, Henro would be reassessed to reverse treatment of transferred land from inventory to capital property; respondent’s 2003 taxation year would be reassessed to add capital gain to its income — In March 2015, Minister issuing 2015 assessment claiming back 2010 payment, refund interest — Whether Tax Court properly holding that 2015 assessment not issued in conformity with Act — Parties, Tax Court proceeded on basis that 2010 reassessment null, void since issued more than three years after 2003 assessment issued — Agreeing that because null, void, 2010 reassessment could not supersede 2003 reassessment — Act , s. 152(4) giving Minister power to “notify in writing any person … that no tax is payable for the year” — Such power exercised when 2010 reassessment issued — Notification that no tax payable may be issued at any time because three-year limit not applying to such notice — While nil assessment cannot be appealed, not without legal effect — When, as in present case, notice that no tax is payable issued after initial assessment or reassessment issued, such notice replacing prior assessment, reducing “tax payable” for year to nil — In present case, tax payable by respondent for 2003 taxation year fixed by 2003 reassessment at $1 809 598, which amount paid upon filing return for that year — Subsequent nil assessment in 2010 reducing tax payable from amount paid to zero, thus generating “overpayment” within defined meaning set out in Act , s. 164(7) (b) — Issue therefore whether 2010 payment made further to issuance of nil assessment qualifying as “refund” under Act , s. 164(1) (a)(iii) — Parliament’s objective in requiring that notice of assessment be issued before refund can be paid, except in specific cases, being to establish existence of “overpayment” , defined in Act , s. 164(7) — Therefore, nil assessment operating same way as assessment that levies tax, must be viewed as assessment when applying Act , s. 164(1) (a)(iii) — Thus, 2010 payment refund authorized to be made pursuant to Act , s. 164(1) (a)(iii) — Refund interest paid by Minister to respondent in 2010 could therefore be recovered pursuant to Act , s. 164(3.1) — Finally, since refund authorized under Act , s. 164(1) (a)(iii), made pursuant to specific provision of Act , it followed that ss. 160.1(1) , 160.1(3) could be validly invoked in support of 2015 assessment — Therefore, respondent’s contention that 2015 assessment not issued in conformity with Act rejected, legal validity of 2015 assessment confirmed — Appeal allowed.

This was an appeal from a Tax Court of Canada judgment allowing the appeal brought by the respondent and vacating an assessment issued by the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) under the Income Tax Act pertaining to the respondent’s 2003 taxation year. The Tax Court had to decide whether the assessment dated March 23, 2015 (2015 assessment) was validly issued when regard was had to the relevant provisions of the Act .

It answered this question in the negative on the basis that the 2015 assessment was issued beyond the normal reassessment period and subsection 169(3) of the Act , dealing with out-of-court settlements, did not save it given that the respondent was not a party to the settled appeal. The Tax Court also concluded that although subsections 160.1(1) and 160.1(3) and subsection 164(3.1) of the Act allowed for the issuance of an assessment out of time, these provisions were not validly invoked on the facts of this case.

The appellant contended that the Tax Court erred on both counts and argued that the Minister could, by way of the 2015 assessment, recover an excessive tax refund of $1 809 598 paid to the respondent in 2010, plus accrued interest. The respondent supported the holding that subsection 169(3) did not extend to it since it was not a party in the settled appeal. It further argued that the Tax Court correctly held that none of the excessive refund provisions invoked by the Minister authorized the issuance of the 2015 assessment.

The respondent was incorporated under the laws of the province of Alberta as a wholly owned subsidiary of Henro Holdings Corporation (Henro). Henro transferred to the respondent 84 acres of land it had. Both Henro and the respondent considered the land to be capital property, and the transfer was made on a rollover basis further to a joint election made pursuant to subsection 85(1) of the Act . Later that day, the respondent sold the land to an arm’s length party.

The respondent distributed part of the proceeds of the sale to Henro by the payment of capital dividends in the amounts of $1 250 000 and $2 702 238 respectively. In computing its income for its taxation year

ended March 31, 2003, the respondent reported a taxable capital gain of $3 952 238 resulting from the sale of the land. On June 23, 2003, the Minister issued a notice of assessment levying

Part I tax in the amount of $1 809 598 (2003 assessment). A notice of reassessment was issued for the same year in October 2003, which left the initial assessment unaltered and acknowledged full receipt of the tax payable for the year (2003 reassessment). Given the date of issuance of the 2003 assessment, the normal reassessment period for the respondent’s 2003 taxation year ended in June 2006.

In 2007, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) advised Henro that it proposed to reassess its 2003 through 2007 taxation years on the basis that the land transferred to the respondent was inventory rather than capital property and therefore not eligible for the joint election made pursuant to subsection 85(1) of the Act . In June 2009, the CRA informed Henro that the respondent’s normal reassessment period was coming to an end and asked that a waiver be signed to allow the CRA to refund the taxes the respondent paid on the capital gain reported for its 2003 taxation year.

Despite the fact that the time for filing a waiver for that year had expired, the respondent agreed to file a waiver for that purpose. The CRA assessed and reassessed Henro given the excessive capital dividend it paid to its shareholders resulting from the CRA’s treatment of the land as inventory. Henro objected to these assessments and reassessments. The direct consequence of these assessments was that the land that was transferred to the respondent during its 2003 taxation year was deemed by

section 69 of the Act to have been acquired at its fair market value and that, as a result, no income was generated by the respondent on the arm’s length sale that took place the same day. The Minister, by notice of reassessment issued in 2010 (2010 reassessment or nil assessment), reduced the taxable capital gain reported by the respondent for its 2003 taxation year from $3 952 238 to nil and refunded the respondent the amount of $2 577 231 representing the taxes paid in the amount of $1 809 598 on the reported taxable capital gain in 2003, plus refund interest in the amount of $767 633.

The respondent accepted this payment (2010 payment). In April 2012, the CRA confirmed the various reassessments and assessments issued against Henro. An appeal was subsequently filed before the Tax Court. Later, the CRA and Henro executed an agreement settling the outstanding appeal before the Tax Court. The agreement was made pursuant to subsection 169(3) of the Act and was co-signed by the respondent, who, although not a party to the appeal settled by the agreement, was a party to the agreement.

The settlement agreement stipulates, among other things, that Henro would be reassessed to reverse the treatment of the transferred land from inventory to capital property, and that the respondent’s 2003 taxation year would be reassessed to add to its income an amount of $7 904 475 of capital gain ($3 952 238 taxable capital gain).

On March 23, 2015, the Minister issued the 2015 assessment which claimed back the 2010 payment, including the refund interest, plus arrears interest since 2010 on the basis that the transferred land was capital property and that taxes were payable by the respondent as originally reported and assessed. Despite having signed the settlement agreement, the respondent objected to the 2015 assessment and brought the matter before the Tax Court. The main issue was whether the Tax Court properly held that the 2015 assessment was not issued in conformity with the Act . Held , the appeal should be allowed.

The parties and the Tax Court Judge all proceeded on the basis that the 2010 reassessment was null and void by reason of it having been issued more than three years after the 2003 assessment was issued. All were agreed that because it was null and void, the 2010 reassessment could not supersede the 2003 reassessment. Subsection 152(4) gives the Minister the power to “notify in writing any person … that no tax is payable for the year” . This was the power that was exercised when the 2010 reassessment was issued.

A notification that no tax is payable may be issued at any time because the three-year limit subsequently provided for under that provision does not apply to a notice that no tax is payable. It followed that nothing turned on the fact that the 2010 reassessment was issued after this period had expired or that the waiver for the 2003 taxation year was invalid because it was filed out of time. While a nil assessment cannot be appealed because it assesses no tax, it is not without legal effect.

In the end, there was no basis for the respondent’s contention that a nil assessment is a mere notification without legal consequences under the Act . There was equally no basis for the contention that the 2010 reassessment was “voided” by the settlement agreement since a reassessment cannot be voided by agreement. When, as in this case, a notice that no tax is payable is issued after an initial assessment or reassessment has been issued, it replaces the prior assessment and reduces the “tax payable” for the year to nil.

In this case, the tax payable by the respondent for its 2003 taxation year was fixed by the 2003 reassessment at $1 809 598, which amount was paid upon filing the return for that year. The subsequent issuance of the nil assessment in 2010 had the effect of reducing the tax payable all the way from the amount that had been paid to zero. Yet, it remained that an amount had been paid by the respondent in respect of the 2003 taxation year. It followed that an “overpayment” within the defined meaning set out in paragraph 164(7) (

b) of the Act did result from the issuance of the nil assessment. With respect to the refund of the overpayment, it had to be determined whether the 2010 payment made further to the issuance of the nil assessment qualified as a “refund” under subparagraph 164(1)(a)(iii) of the Act given that this provision allows for a refund to be paid “on or after sending the notice of assessment for the year” — m ore specifically, whether a nil assessment comes within the meaning of the word “assessment” as it is used in subparagraph 164(1)(a)(iii).

Parliament’s objective in requiring that a notice of assessment be issued before a refund can be paid—in cases other than those involving refunds arising from deemed payments (see subparagraphs 164(1)(a)(

i) and 164(1)(a)(ii))—is to establish the existence of an “overpayment” , defined in subsection 164(7) of the Act as the excess of the tax paid towards a taxpayer’s liability over the tax payable for the year. For that purpose, a nil assessment operates the same way as an assessment that levies tax. It followed that a nil assessment had to be viewed as an assessment when applying subparagraph 164(1) (a)(iii). Therefore, the 2010 payment was a refund authorized to be made pursuant to subparagraph 164(1)(a)(iii).

One of the statutory consequences that flowed from this conclusion was that the refund interest paid by the Minister to the respondent in 2010 could be recovered pursuant to subsection 164(3.1) of the Act . Subsections 160.1(1) and 160.1(3) of the Act allow the Minister to recover the overpayment. Since the refund was authorized under subparagraph 164(1)(a)(iii) and therefore made pursuant to a specific provision of the Act , it followed that subsections 160.1(1) and 160.1(3) could be validly invoked in support of the 2015 assessment.

The Tax Court was right in determining that subjecting the application of subsections 160.1(1) and 160.1(3) of the Act to the issuance of a prior reassessment constrained by a time limit would run against the plain language of these provisions which empower the Minister to determine that an excessive refund has been made and to recover it “at any time” by way of an assessment.

Here, this determination necessarily flowed from the fact that the respondent generated a taxable capital gain totalling $3 952 238 in circumstances where the tax paid on that account had been refunded, plus accrued interest, five years earlier. Nothing more was required in order for the Minister to determine that there had been an excessive refund as described in subsection 160.1(1) and to recover it by issuing the 2015 assessment pursuant to subsection 160.1(3). Giving these words their plain

meaning effectively allows for the determination that an excessive refund of

Part I tax has been made after the normal reassessmentperiod has expired, but only for the purpose of allowing the Minister to recover tax that is owed and determined to have been improperlyrefunded. It followed that the respondent’s contention that the 2015 assessment was not issued in conformity with the Act had to berejected and the legal validity of this assessment had to be confirmed. STATUTES AND REGULATIONS CITED

An Act to amend The Income War Tax Act, 1917, 1919, 9-10 Geo. V, c. 55 (Can.), s. 8(2).

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1960, c. 43, s. 15. Financial Administration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-11. Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, s. 57(1). Income Tax Act, R.S.C., 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1, ss. 2, 46(7), 69, 83(2), 85(1), 152, 160.1, 161.1(1) “overpayment amount”, 161.4(1),164(1),(3),(3.1),(7) “overpayment”, 165(1.2), 169(3), 171(1), 248(1) “assessment”, (2). Income Tax Act (The), S.C. 1948, c. 52, s. 52(1). Income Tax War Act, 1917, S.C. 1917, c. 28. Income War Tax Act, R.S.C. 1927, c. 97, s. 56. CASES CITED APPLIED: Markevich v. Canada, 2003 SCC 9, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 94.

DISTINGUISHED Imperial Oil Resources Limited v. Canada, 2016 FCA 139, [2016] 4 F.C.R. 389. CONSIDERED: Freitas v. Canada, 2018 FCA 110, 2018 D.T.C. 5064; Okalta Oils Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, (SCC), [1955]S.C.R. 824, [1955] 5 D.L.R. 614; Matte v. The Queen, (TCC), [2004] 1 C.T.C. 2823, (2002), 56 D.T.C. 3876. REFERRED TO: Galway v. M.N.R., (FCA), [1974] 1 F.C. 600 (1974), 2 N.R. 324 (C.A.); Harris v. Canada, (FCA), [2000] 4 F.C. 37, (2000), 256 N.R. 221 (C.A); SoftSim Technologies Inc. v. The Queen, 2012 TCC 181, 2012 D.T.C. 1187;University Hill Holdings Inc. (589918 B.C. Ltd.) v.

Canada, 2017 FCA 232, [2017] D.T.C. 5131; Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33,[2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; Abrahams v. Minister of National Revenue, (CA EXC), [1967] 1 Ex. C.R. 333, (1966), (CA EXC), 66 D.T.C 5453; Transcanada Pipelines Ltd. v. The Queen, 2001 FCA 314, 278 N.R. 165; Lornport InvestmentsLtd. v. Canada, (FCA), [1992] 2 F.C. 293, (1992), 92 D.T.C. 6231 (C.A.); Canadian Marconi Co. v. Canada, (FCA), [1992] 1 F.C. 655, (1991), 91 D.T.C. 5626 (C.A.); Blackburn Radio Inc. v. The Queen, 2012 TCC 255, 2012D.T.C. 1213; Cougar Helicopters Inc. v. The Queen¸ 2017 TCC 126, 2017 D.T.C. 1077; Miller v.

Canada (Attorney General), 2002 FCA370, 220 D.L.R. (4th) 149; Canada v. Interior Savings Credit Union, 2007 FCA 151, [2007] 4 C.T.C. 55; Terra Nova Properties Ltd. v.Minister of National Revenue, (CA EXC), [1967] 2 Ex. C.R. 46, (1967), 67 D.T.C. 5064; Canada v. WesbrookManagement Ltd. (1996), 96 D.T.C. 6590, [1997] 1 C.T.C. 124 (F.C.A.); Minister of National Revenue v. Riendeau (1991), 132 N.R.157, 91 D.T.C. 5416 (F.C.A.); The Queen v. Simard-Beaudry Inc., (FC), [1971] 1 F.C. 396, (1971), 71 D.T.C.5511 (T.D.); Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada, 2005 SCC 54, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601; Glatt v.

Canada (National Revenue),2019 FC 738, 2019 D.T.C. 5074; Canada v. Bulk Transfer Systems Inc., 2005 FCA 94, 2005 D.T.C. 5192; Canada v. Addison & LeyenLtd., 2007 SCC 33, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 793, revg 2006 FCA 107, [2006] 4 F.C.R. 532. AUTHORS CITED Canada. Canada Revenue Agency. Income Tax Rulings Directorate. Technical

Interpretation, No. TI 2009-0334351I7, “ExcessiveRefunds”, January 29, 2010. Sherman David M. Income Tax Act, Department of Finance Technical Notes: a consolidation of technical notes and other income taxcommentary from the Department of Finance, 11th ed., Scarborough, Ont.: Carswell, 1999. APPEAL from a Tax Court of Canada judgment (2019 TCC 85, [2020] 1 C.T.C. 2001) allowing the respondent’s appeal and vacating anassessment issued by the Minister of National Revenue under the Income Tax Act pertaining to the respondent’s 2003 taxation year.Appeal allowed. APPEARANCES Simon Petit and Chantal Roberge for appellant. Barry Landy for respondent.

SOLICITORS OF RECORD Deputy Attorney General of Canada for appellant. Spiegel Sohmer , Montréal, for respondent.

The following are the reasons for judgment rendered in English by [ 1 ] Noël C.J. : This is an appeal brought by Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown or the appellant) from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada ( 2019 TCC 85 , [2020] 1 C.T.C. 2001 [reasons]), wherein Smith J. (the Tax Court Judge) allowed the appeal brought by 984274 Alberta Inc. (the respondent or Alberta) and vacated an assessment issued by the Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) under the Income Tax Act , R.S.C., 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1 (the Act ) pertaining to the respondent’s 2003 taxation year. [ 2 ] The question to be decided is whether this assessment dated March 23, 2015 (the 2015 assessment) was validly issued when regard is had to the relevant provisions of the Act .

The Tax Court Judge answered this question in the negative on the basis that the 2015 assessment was issued beyond the normal reassessment period and subsection 169(3) dealing with out-of-court settlements did not save it given that the respondent was not a party to the settled appeal.

He also concluded that although subsections 160.1(1) and 160.1(3) and subsection 164(3.1) allowed for the issuance of an assessment out of time, these provisions were not validly invoked on the facts of this case. [ 3 ] The appellant contends that the Tax Court Judge erred on both counts and argues that the Minister could by way of the 2015 assessment recover an excessive tax refund of $1 809 598 paid to the respondent in 2010, plus accrued interest. [ 4 ] The respondent supports the holding that subsection 169(3) does not extend to it as it was not a party in the settled appeal.

Further, the respondent argues that the Tax Court Judge was correct in holding that none of the excessive refund provisions invoked by the Minister authorized the issuance of the 2015 assessment. [ 5 ] For the reasons which follow, I am of the view that the appeal should be allowed. [ 6 ] The provisions of the Act that are relevant to the analysis appear at the end of these reasons. FACTS [ 7 ] The appeal before the Tax Court proceeded on the basis of an agreed statement of facts, a copy of which is appended to the judgment under appeal.

The following sets out the salient features together with a few other relevant facts revealed by the record. [ 8 ] The respondent was incorporated under the laws of the Province of Alberta on April 16, 2002, as a wholly owned subsidiary of Henro Holdings Corporation (Henro). [ 9 ] On April 24, 2002, Henro transferred to the respondent 84 acres of land that it had acquired in 1987 (the land). Both Henro and the respondent considered the land to be capital property, and the transfer was made on a rollover basis further to a joint election made pursuant to subsection 85(1) of the Act .

Later that day, the respondent sold the land to an arm’s length party. [ 10 ] On September 5, 2002, and again on November 18, 2002, the respondent distributed part of the proceeds of the sale to Henro by the payment of capital dividends pursuant to subsection 83(2) of the Act in the amounts of $1 250 000 and $2 702 238 respectively. [ 11 ] In computing its income for its taxation year ended March 31, 2003, the respondent reported a taxable capital gain of $3 952 238 resulting from the sale of the land. On June 23, 2003, the Minister issued a notice of assessment levying

Part I [sections 2 to 180] tax in the amount of $1 809 598 (the 2003 assessment).

A notice of reassessment was issued for the same year on October 23, 2003, which left the initial assessment unaltered and acknowledged full receipt of the tax payable for the year (the 2003 reassessment). [ 12 ] Given the date of issuance of the 2003 assessment, the normal reassessment period for the respondent’s 2003 taxation year ended on June 23, 2006 ( subsection 152(3.1) of the Act ). [ 13 ] Some time in June 2006—the exact date is not revealed—the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) informed Henro that it had been selected for an audit.

On July 20, 2007, the CRA advised Henro that it proposed to reassess its 2003 through 2007 taxation years on the basis that the land transferred to the respondent was inventory rather than capital property, and therefore not eligible for the joint election made pursuant to subsection 85(1) of the Act . [ 14 ] On June 8, 2009, the CRA informed Henro’s legal representative that the respondent’s normal reassessment period was coming to an end and asked that a waiver be signed in order to allow the CRA to refund the taxes the respondent paid on the capital gain reported for its 2003 taxation year.

Despite the fact that the time for filing a waiver for that year had expired, the respondent agreed to file a waiver for that purpose ( subparagraph 152(4) (a)(ii) and subsection 152(3.1) of the Act ). [ 15 ] Between December 2009 and July 2010, the CRA gave effect to its proposal and assessed and reassessed Henro under Parts I, III [sections 184 to 185] and IV [sections 186 to 187] of the Act . The

Part III tax was assessed by reason of the excessive capital dividend paid by Henro to its shareholders resulting from the CRA’s treatment of the land as inventory. Henro objected to these assessments and reassessments. [ 16 ] The direct consequence of these assessments was that the land that was transferred to the respondent during its 2003 taxation year was deemed by

section 69 to have been acquired at its fair market value and that, as a result, no income was generated by the respondent on the arm’s length sale that took place the same day. Consistent with this view, the Minister, by notice of reassessment issued in 2010 (the 2010 reassessment or the nil assessment), reduced the taxable capital gain reported by the respondent for its 2003

taxation year from $3 952 238 to nil and refunded the respondent the amount of $2 577 231 representing the taxes paid in the amount of $1 809 598 on the reported taxable capital gain in 2003, plus refund interest in the amount of $767 633. The respondent accepted this payment (the 2010 payment). [ 17 ] Both the appellant and the respondent argued their case before the Tax Court Judge on the basis that the 2010 reassessment was void and of no effect as it was issued after the respondent’s normal reassessment period had expired (agreed statement of facts, paragraph 30).

However, before this Court the parties have changed their position on this point. The appellant now takes the view that the 2010 reassessment was voidable rather than void and the respondent argues that it was either void or not a reassessment at all. [ 18 ] In April 2012, the CRA confirmed the

Part I reassessments and Parts III and IV assessments issued against Henro. An appeal was subsequently filed before the Tax Court. [ 19 ] Settlement discussions took place and, in July 2014, representatives of the CRA and Henro executed an agreement settling the outstanding appeal before the Tax Court. The agreement is titled “Out of Court Settlement pursuant [ to] subsection 169(3) of the [ Act ]” and is co-signed by the respondent.

The respondent recognizes that although not a party to the appeal settled by the agreement, it was a party to the agreement (memorandum of the respondent, paragraph 20). [ 20 ] The settlement agreement stipulates, among other things, that Henro would be reassessed to reverse the treatment of the transferred land from inventory to capital property, and that the respondent’s 2003 taxation year would be reassessed to add to its income an amount of $7 904 475 of capital gain ($3 952 238 taxable capital gain). [ 21 ] On March 23, 2015, the Minister issued the 2015 assessment which claimed back the 2010 payment, including the refund interest, plus arrears interest since 2010 on the basis that the transferred land was capital property and that taxes were payable by the respondent as originally reported and assessed.

Beyond subsection 169(3), the 2015 assessment is said to have been issued pursuant to subsections 160.1(1) , 160.1(3) and 164(3.1) of the Act (reply to the notice of appeal, paragraph 1, appeal book, Vol. 1, page 72). [ 22 ] Despite having signed the settlement agreement, the respondent objected to the 2015 assessment and brought the matter before the Tax Court.

In so doing, it acknowledged, issues of prescription aside, that the Minister could pursue a contractual claim in the Superior Court of Quebec to recover the tax and interest that were reimbursed in error (memorandum of the respondent, paragraph 23). [ 23 ] The Tax Court Judge allowed the appeal holding essentially that the respondent was not a proper party to the out-of-court settlement made pursuant to subsection 169(3) of the Act , and that the 2010 payment could not otherwise be reclaimed pursuant to subsections 160.1(3) and 164(3.1) as it was not an authorized refund under the Act .

DECISION UNDER APPEAL [ 24 ] The Tax Court Judge first outlined the respondent’s position in the matter before him as follows (reasons, paragraph 27): The Appellant’s [respondent before us] position is that the Minister had no statutory authority to make [the 2010 payment]. The tax on the capital gain was assessed in 2003 and paid at that time. [The 2010 payment] was simply an amount paid in error and the Minister’s recourse is in civil law under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act , R.S.C. 1985, c.

C-50 , before a court of competent jurisdiction. [ 25 ] He identified three preliminary issues: “Is the 2010 Reassessment null and void?” , “What is the effect of the 2010 Reassessment being null and void?” and “Is the Appellant bound by the Settlement?” . After reviewing the relevant provisions and the case law relating to subsection 152(8), he concluded that the 2010 reassessment, having been issued beyond the expiration of the normal reassessment period, was null and void (reasons, paragraphs 39–49).

This last holding was consistent with the position advocated by the parties in the matter before him. [ 26 ] The Tax Court Judge then quickly answered his second preliminary question by holding that as a result of the foregoing, the 2003 assessment, which assessed the capital gain in the hands of the respondent as reported, remained in effect (reasons, paragraphs 50– 52). [ 27 ] The Tax Court Judge went on to consider whether subsection 169(3) applied to the respondent, specifically, whether the respondent was barred from objecting to the 2015 assessment by reason of subsection 165(1.2) (reasons, paragraph 56).

After conducting a brief textual analysis, the Tax Court Judge concluded that subsection 169(3) could only apply to a party to the appeal that had been settled, which the respondent was not. Given this, he held that the respondent was not precluded from objecting to the 2015 assessment (reasons, paragraphs 60, 62). [ 28 ] The Tax Court Judge then considered the question whether the 2010 payment was authorized to be made by subsections 164(1) and 164(3) of the Act (reasons, paragraphs 63–81).

Specifically, he asked whether this payment qualified as a tax refund, with accrued interest, within the meaning of subsections 164(1) , 164(3) and 164(7) of the Act . Given his earlier finding that the 2010 reassessment was void and that the 2003 assessment subsisted, he observed that the Crown could not have made an “overpayment” within the meaning of subsection 164(7) .

As there was no “overpayment” , the Tax Court judge reasoned that the 2010 payment could not be viewed as a refund under subsections 164(1) and 164(3) (reasons, paragraphs 75–79). [ 29 ] The Tax Court Judge then considered whether the 2010 payment was still in the nature of a refund pursuant to subsections 160.1(1) and 160.1(3) so as to allow refund interest to be claimed pursuant to subsection 164(3.1) (reasons, paragraph 84).

After repeating that the 2010 payment was not authorized under subsection 164(1) , he went on to hold that refund interest could not be claimed (reasons, paragraphs 85–90). [ 30 ] Under a separate heading, the Tax Court Judge then considered whether the Minister was entitled to reassess pursuant to subsections 160.1(1) and 160.1(3) . He first rejected the respondent’s contention that these provisions require the Minister to make a prior determination pursuant to another provision of the Act (reasons, paragraphs 94–99).

[ 31 ] He then rejected the respondent’s further contention that subsections 160.1(1) and 160.1(3) require that a refund be claimed by a taxpayer before these provisions can be invoked (reasons, paragraphs 100–106). [ 32 ] However, he went on to accept the respondent’s contention that in order for subsection 160.1(1) to apply, the taxpayer must have received a refund pursuant to a specific provision of the Act in excess of what they are entitled to (reasons, paragraphs 107–117).

As in this case the 2010 payment was not made pursuant to a specific provision of the Act , he held that subsection 160.1(1) could not be validly invoked (reasons, paragraph 118). [ 33 ] Finally, the Tax Court Judge held that even if subsection 160.1(1) applies to “‘refunds’” within the ordinary definition of the word, without coming within any specific provision of the Act , this provision was nevertheless inapplicable (reasons, paragraphs 120– 134).

The crux of the decision on this aspect and all others is that as the 2003 assessment remained in effect throughout, no overpayment had been made and therefore no refund could be recovered. [ 34 ] The Tax Court Judge therefore allowed the appeal on the basis that the 2015 assessment was not issued in compliance with subsections 160.1(1) , 160.1(3) , and 164(3.1) of the Act (reasons, paragraph 135).

POSITION OF THE CROWN [ 35 ] In support of its appeal, the Crown argues that the respondent is bound by the out-of-court settlement agreement that it signed to resolve Henro’s appeal when regard is had to the text, context and purpose of subsection 169(3) of the Act . According to the Crown, this provision was enacted to facilitate the settlement of Tax Court appeals by also resolving ancillary matters that need not necessarily fall under its jurisdiction.

This is to be contrasted with consents to judgment made pursuant to subsection 171(1) which are limited in this manner (memorandum of the Crown, paragraphs 30–31, 36). [ 36 ] Focusing on the text, the Crown contends that the wording of subsection 169(3) allows the Minister to reassess the taxpayer “for the purpose of disposing of an appeal made under a provision of this Act ” . The expression “the taxpayer” refers to any taxpayer who has consented to being reassessed.

In holding that these words exclude the respondent, the Tax Court Judge erred, argues the Crown, as this amounts to substituting the word “taxpayer” with “a party to the appeal” (memorandum of the Crown, paragraphs 32–34). [ 37 ] Relying on the recent decision of this Court in Freitas v. Canada , 2018 FCA 110 , 2018 D.T.C. 5064 ( Freitas ), where it was held that a statute-barred reassessment was voidable rather than void, the Crown moves away from the position that it took before the Tax Court Judge and now argues that the 2010 reassessment was validly issued.

When regard is had to Freitas ¸ the 2010 reassessment effectively reversed the capital gain of $7 904 475 assessed by the 2003 assessment and reduced the respondent’s tax to nil thereby giving rise to an overpayment (memorandum of the Crown, paragraph 44). [ 38 ] At the hearing, the appellant recognized that the 2010 reassessment was a nil assessment and could, on that account, be issued at any time, but was unclear about the repercussions that this could have on the validity of the 2015 assessment.

However, counsel was clear that the nil assessment is to be viewed as an assessment for purposes of subparagraph 164(1)(a)(iii), and that consequently, the 2010 payment qualifies as a refund under the Act . [ 39 ] Finally, the Crown submits that the Tax Court Judge erred by carving out the 2010 payment from the application of subsections 160.1(1) , 160.1(3) and 164(3.1) as these provisions expressly confer on the Minister the power to assess excess refunds, at any time, regardless of whether those refunds were paid in conformity with the Act or paid in error (memorandum of the Crown, paragraphs 56– 57, 60).

POSITION OF THE RESPONDENT [ 40 ] In its recital of the facts, the respondent asserts that the recovery of refund and arrears interest were not contemplated by the settlement agreement (memorandum of the respondent, paragraphs 21–22). In so stating, it omits to point to paragraph 12 of the settlement agreement which addresses the issue of interest in specific terms and identifies those that the Minister agreed to waive. [ 41 ] This may explain why the respondent made no submissions on this question and claimed no specific relief with respect to interest.

The only position advocated by the respondent before us is that the 2015 assessment was not issued in conformity with the Act and must for that reason be vacated in its entirety (memorandum of the respondent, paragraphs 32–77). [ 42 ] In support of this position, the respondent first argues that subsection 169(3) to which reference is made in the settlement agreement does not apply to it as concluding otherwise is inconsistent with the scheme of the Act (memorandum of the respondent, paragraphs 39–42).

It recognizes being a party to this agreement, but maintains that subsection 169(3) does not apply to it as it was not a party to the appeal being settled. According to the respondent, the words of subsection 169(3) are clear and unambiguous and must therefore be applied in such a way “that is not tendentious or result-oriented” (memorandum of the respondent, paragraph 43). [ 43 ] The respondent further argues that the Crown’s proposed construction of subsection 169(3) fails to take into account its introductory words: “Notwithstanding

section 152” which clearly signals that “the taxpayer” referred to in subsection 169(3) is the one who was assessed by the Minister under

section 152, and has appealed to the Tax Court under subsection 169(1) (memorandum of the respondent, paragraphs 45–46). [ 44 ] The respondent therefore submits that the Tax Court Judge made no error in holding that subsections 169(3) and 165(1.2) did not preclude it from objecting to the 2015 assessment. [ 45 ] Turning to the 2010 reassessment, the respondent adopts the Tax Court Judge’s conclusion that it is null and void by reason of being out of time (memorandum of the respondent, paragraph 47).

It challenges the Crown’s reliance on Freitas, pointing out that none of the prior case law, which holds otherwise, is mentioned in that case. For this reason, the respondent suggests that Freitas was decided per incuriam (memorandum of the respondent, paragraphs 49–50).

[46] The respondent further points out that the 2010 reassessment was a nil assessment and therefore not a reassessment at all. Duringthe hearing, counsel took the position that a nil assessment is devoid of any legal consequences and accordingly, the 2010 reassessmenthad no impact on the computation of the respondent’s tax payable for the 2003 taxation year. [47] Turning to the 2015 assessment, the respondent maintains that the provisions relied upon by the Minister in issuing it—subsections 160.1(1), 160.1(3) and 164(3.1)—do not support it.

According to the respondent, subsections 160.1(1) and 160.1(3) onlyauthorize the Minister to assess a taxpayer in cases where it has made a prior determination that an excessive refund has been madepursuant to a specific provision of the Act (memorandum of the respondent, paragraphs 53–57, 61). [48] Consequently, subsection 164(3.1) cannot be validly invoked by the Minister to recoup the interest paid on the refund as the2010 payment was not a refund authorized to be made under the Act (memorandum of the respondent, paragraph 65). [49] Moreover, the respondent relies on Imperial Oil Resources Limited v.

Canada, 2016 FCA 139, [2016] 4 F.C.R. 389 (ImperialOil) to argue that “if an amount is paid but the tax liability for the year is not affected, there is no refund pursuant to

section 164 of theAct” (memorandum of the respondent, paragraph 67). [50] Lastly, the respondent submits that only refunds claimed by a taxpayer can be recovered by the Minister under

section 160.1.Given that the respondent never claimed a refund, it argues that the Minister cannot invoke

section 160.1 (memorandum of therespondent, paragraphs 64, 75–76). Since the Minister had no statutory authority to make the 2010 payment, the Minister cannot nowrecoup it by way of assessment under the Act, but should rather proceed before a competent common law or civil law court(memorandum of the respondent, paragraphs 71, 73). ANALYSIS [51] It is readily apparent that no settlement agreement could have been reached without the respondent being a party to thisagreement and agreeing to be taxed on the capital gain realized in 2003.

However, now that its parent, Henro, has reaped the benefit ofthis agreement, the respondent, with Henro’s necessary approval, refuses to honour its part of the bargain and pay back the tax andrelated interest refunded to it in 2010. [52] We need not determine, as the Crown asks, whether subsections 169(3) and 165(1.2) preclude the respondent from taking thisstand because whether these provisions apply or not, the respondent has the right to challenge the 2015 assessment on the basis that itwas not issued in conformity with the Act (Galway v.

M.N.R., (FCA), [1974] 1 F.C. 600, (1974), 2 N.R. 324 (C.A.)(Galway); Harris v. Canada, (FCA), [2000] 4 F.C. 37, (2000), 256 N.R. 221 (C.A.); SoftSim Technologies Inc. v.The Queen, 2012 TCC 181, 2012 D.T.C. 1187; University Hill Holdings Inc. (589918 B.C. Ltd.) v. Canada, 2017 FCA 232, [2017]D.T.C. 5131). The issue that must be decided is whether the Tax Court Judge properly held that the 2015 assessment was not issued inconformity with the Act. This turns on a number of questions of law that are subject to the standard of correctness (Housen v.

Nikolaisen,2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, paragraphs 8, 37). [53] Before turning to this Court’s analysis, I note that although the parties and the Tax Court Judge have throughout referred to the2003 assessment as the one that was in place when the 2010 reassessment was issued, it had in fact been replaced by the 2003reassessment. This is a necessary precision (see subsection 152(8), previously subsection 46(7) as applied in Abrahams v. Minister ofNational Revenue, (CA EXC), [1967] 1 Ex. C.R. 333, pages 336–337, (1966), (CA EXC), 66 D.T.C.5453; Transcanada Pipelines Ltd. v.

The Queen, 2001 FCA 314, 278 N.R. 165, paragraph 12), but it has no impact on the outcome sincethe tax payable remained the same under both the 2003 assessment and the 2003 reassessment. Was the 2010 reassessment null and void? [54] The parties and the Tax Court Judge all proceeded on the basis that the 2010 reassessment was null and void by reason of ithaving been issued more than three years after the 2003 assessment was issued. All were agreed that because it was null and void, the2010 reassessment could not supersede the 2003 reassessment.

This is instrumental because, if the 2003 reassessment subsisted, therespondent’s payment of $1 809 598 on account of tax for that year cannot be viewed as an “overpayment” within the meaning ofsubsection 164(7).

Absent an “overpayment”, the amount repaid to the respondent further to the 2010 reassessment cannot qualify as a“refund”, and hence there is no possibility for the Crown to recover an “excessive refund” under subsections 160.1(1), 160.1(3) and164(3.1). [55] The appellant now relies on Freitas, a decision of this Court released after the hearing before the Tax Court Judge took place, toargue that a reassessment issued out of time is voidable rather than void.

As will be seen, nothing turns on this distinction in this case, butthe principle according to which an out-of-time reassessment is null and void rather than voidable is firmly entrenched in the case lawand is based on sound logic (Lornport Investments Ltd. v. Canada, (FCA), [1992] 2 F.C. 293, (1992), 92 D.T.C.6231 (C.A.) (Lornport); Canadian Marconi Company v. Canada, (FCA), [1992] 1 F.C. 655, (1991), 91 D.T.C. 5626(C.A.) (Canadian Marconi); Blackburn Radio Inc. v. The Queen, 2012 TCC 255, 2012 D.T.C. 1213 (Blackburn Radio), paragraph 62;Cougar Helicopters Inc. v. The Queen¸ 2017 TCC 126, 2017 D.T.C. 1077).

As explained in these cases, subsection 152(8) which deemsan assessment to be valid despite any error, defect or omission cannot validate an out-of-time assessment, even temporarily (see inparticular Lornport, page 297). I agree with the respondent that Freitas is not authoritative on this point as the Court manifestlyoverlooked this established line of cases and did not address the reasoning behind it (Miller v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 FCA370, 220 D.L.R. (4th) 149, paragraph 10).

Moreover, as the appellant has not otherwise taken issue with this line of cases, there is nobasis on which we could depart from it. [56] However, before us, the respondent pointed out, citing Canada v. Interior Savings Credit Union, 2007 FCA 151, [2007] 4 C.T.C.55 (Interior Savings), that the 2010 reassessment was not a reassessment in the first place (memorandum of the respondent, paragraph51). Rather, it was a notice that no tax is payable.

The Tax Court Judge referred to the fact that the 2010 reassessment levied no tax onnumerous occasions (reasons, paragraphs 2, 14, 77), but did not consider the impact that this might have on the matter before him. What is the effect of the nil assessment?

[57] A notice that no tax is payable is commonly called a nil assessment. This is not a total misnomer as although a nil assessmentassesses no tax, it operates as an assessment in other respects. This may explain why, to this day, a notice that no tax is payable continuesto be issued under the heading “assessment” or “reassessment” as was the case here (appeal book, Vol. 2, page 138). [58] Subsection 152(4) gives the Minister the power to “notify in writing any person … that no tax is payable for the year”. This isthe power that was exercised when the 2010 reassessment was issued.

A notification that no tax is payable may be issued at any time,because the three-year limit subsequently provided for under that provision does not apply to a notice that no tax is payable. It followsthat nothing turns on the fact that the 2010 reassessment was issued after this period had expired or that the waiver for the 2003 taxationyear is invalid because it was filed out of time. [59] It is well established that a nil assessment cannot be appealed because it assesses no tax (Okalta Oils Ltd. v.

Minister of NationalRevenue, (SCC), [1955] S.C.R. 824, [1955] 5 D.L.R. 614 (Okalta), page 826; Interior Savings, paragraph 17; ImperialOil, paragraph 61; Blackburn Radio¸ paragraph 28), however, a nil assessment is not without legal effect. What then is the impact of thisnil assessment? [60] A nil assessment, like an assessment that levies tax, can impact on both a taxpayer’s “tax liability”, a broad notion anchored insection 2 of the Act, or on the “tax payable” for a taxation year, a narrower concept defined in subsection 248(2) of the Act.

Liability fortax arises as income is earned and is unaffected by the fact that no assessment has been issued (subsection 152(3); Terra Nova PropertiesLtd. v. Minister of National Revenue, (CA EXC), [1967] 2 Ex. C.R. 46, page 51, (1967), 67 D.T.C. 5064; Canada v.Wesbrook Management Ltd. (1996), 96 D.T.C. 6590, [1997] 1 C.T.C. 124 (F.C.A.); Minister of National Revenue v. Riendeau (1991),132 N.R. 157, 91 D.T.C. 5416 (F.C.A.); see also The Queen v. Simard--Beaudry Inc., (FC), [1971] 1 F.C. 396, page403, (1971), 71 D.T.C. 5511 (T.D.).

In contrast, the “tax payable” for a given taxation year is the amount of tax to be paid “as fixed byassessment or reassessment” (subsection 248(2) of the Act). [61] Subsection 152(4) contemplates the issuance of a notice of assessment, reassessment, additional assessment or a notice that notax is payable. When a notice that no tax is payable is the original notice for a given taxation year, it initiates the computation of thelimitation period the same way as an original assessment does (paragraph 152(3.1)(b)) and establishes that no tax is payable for the year(subsection 152(4)).

Where taxes have previously been paid on account of tax liability for a given year, a notice that no tax is payablecan give rise to an overpayment. [62] The Department of Finance’s Technical Notes relating to subparagraph 161.1(3)(c)(

v) of the Act, a provision dealing with theoffset of refund interest and arrears interest, illustrate this. It states that the entitlement to a refund arises: “where an overpayment hasarisen without a notice of assessment having been issued [for example] where an amount has been paid on account of tax, but a so-called“nil” assessment is issued, indicating that no tax is payable” (Department of Finance’s Technical Notes [Sherman David M. Income TaxAct, Department of Finance Technical Notes: a consolidation of technical notes and other income tax commentary from the Departmentof Finance, 11th ed., Scarborough, Ont.: Carswell, 1999] on subparagraph 161.1(3)(c)(

v) issued in 1999). Though this particularprovision is concerned with an “overpayment amount”, an expression defined under subsection 161.1(1), the Technical Notesnevertheless show how a nil assessment can give rise to the overpayment of a tax liability. [63] In the end, there is no basis for the respondent’s contention that a nil assessment is a mere notification without legalconsequences under the Act. There is equally no basis for the contention that the 2010 reassessment was “voided” by the settlementagreement as a reassessment cannot be voided by agreement.

Was there an overpayment within the meaning of subsection 164(7)? [64] The Tax Court Judge concluded that there was no overpayment in this case. However, he did so on the premise that the 2010reassessment was void.

Given that the 2010 reassessment was a nil assessment, validly issued beyond the normal reassessment period,the issue is whether it gave rise to an overpayment on the facts of this case. [65] When as here, a notice that no tax is payable is issued after an initial assessment or reassessment has been issued (subsection248(1) provides that the word “assessment” includes a reassessment), it replaces the prior assessment and reduces the “tax payable” forthe year to nil.

In this case, the tax payable by the respondent for its 2003 taxation year was fixed by the 2003 reassessment at $1 809598 which amount was paid upon filing the return for that year. The subsequent issuance of the nil assessment in 2010 had the effect ofreducing the tax payable all the way from the amount that had been paid to zero. Yet, it remains that an amount had been paid by therespondent in respect of the 2003 taxation year. It follows that an “overpayment” within the defined meaning set out in paragraph164(7)(

b) did result from the issuance of the nil assessment. Was the refund of this overpayment authorized by subsection 164(1)? [66] Again the Tax Court Judge did not address this issue as, in his view, there was no overpayment to begin with (reasons, paragraphs85–90). The question that arises is whether the 2010 payment made further to the issuance of the nil assessment qualifies as a “refund”under subparagraph 164(1)(a)(iii) given that this provision allows for a refund to be paid “on or after sending the notice of assessment forthe year”.

The precise issue is whether a nil assessment comes within the meaning of the word “assessment” as it is used in subparagraph164(1)(a)(iii). As for all such questions, the answer must be guided by the text, context and purpose of this provision (Canada TrustcoMortgage Co. v. Canada, 2005 SCC 54, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601, paragraph 10). [67] As noted earlier, although a nil assessment fixes the tax payable for the year, it assesses no tax. The result, as confirmed by theSupreme Court in Okalta, is that there is no right to appeal from a nil assessment as there is nothing to object to or appeal from.

Prior tothat decision, no distinction was made under the Act between the two situations. A nil assessment was viewed the same way as any otherassessment. Five years after Okalta, Parliament formally recognized this difference by providing that after examining a tax return, theMinister may either assess tax or issue a notice that no tax is payable (An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1960, c. 43,

section 15amending what was then subsection 46(4), the predecessor to subsection 152(4)). [68] Aside from the fundamental distinction drawn by the Supreme Court in Okalta, an assessment that levies tax and a nil assessment

have the same legal effect i.e. both start the limitation period when issued as the original notice, both replace a prior assessment orreassessment when issued as the last notice, and both fix the tax payable for the year. [69] Parliament’s objective in requiring that a notice of assessment be issued before a refund can be paid—in cases other than thoseinvolving refunds arising from deemed payments (see subparagraphs 164(1)(a)(

i) and 164(1)(a)(ii))—is to establish the existence of an“overpayment”, defined in subsection 164(7) as the excess of the tax paid towards a taxpayer’s liability over the tax payable for theyear. For that purpose, a nil assessment operates the same way as an assessment that levies tax.

The only difference is that the latter fixesthe tax payable at some specific amount all the way down to 2$, whereas the former fixes it at zero (see subsection 161.4(1) whichprovides that an assessed amount of 2$ or less is deemed to be nil). [70] It follows that a nil assessment must be viewed as an assessment when applying subparagraph 164(1)(a)(iii).

Indeed, no logiccould possibly justify a reading of this provision that would prevent the Minister from refunding an established overpayment on the soleground that it arose by reason of a nil assessment rather than an assessment that levies tax. [71] This was the state of the law before Okalta, when a refund could be made as a result of the issuance of a nil assessment or anassessment that levies tax without distinction (see the predecessors of subsection 164(1): subsection 10(4) of the Income Tax War Act,1917, S.C. 1917, c. 28, as amended by

An Act to amend The Income War Tax Act, 1917, 1919, 9-10 Geo. V, c. 55 (Can.), subsection8(2);

section 56 of the Income War Tax Act, R.S.C. 1927, c. 97; subsection 52(1) of The Income Tax Act, S.C. 1948, c. 52 and subsection57(1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148). As the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Okalta does not purport to have any impacton a taxpayer’s entitlement to a refund, subsection 164(1), like its predecessors, must continue to be read and applied the same way (tothe same effect, see Glatt v.

Canada (National Revenue), 2019 FC 738, 2019 D.T.C. 5074, paragraph 16). [72] On an entirely different point, I would add that the respondent’s reliance on Imperial Oil in challenging the application ofsubsection 164(1) is misplaced. This decision is based on a distinct set of facts and holds that a remission order issued pursuant to theFinancial Administration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-11 cannot give rise to an overpayment under subsection 164(7) of the Act (Imperial Oil,paragraphs 50–57).

It has no application on the facts of this case. [73] I therefore come to the conclusion that the 2010 payment was a refund authorized to be made pursuant to subparagraph 164(1)(a)(iii). [74] One of the statutory consequences that flow from this conclusion is that the refund interest paid by the Minister to the respondentin 2010 can be recovered pursuant to subsection 164(3.1) of the Act.

Do subsections 160.1(1) and 160.1(3) allow the Minister to recover the overpayment? [75] The respondent relies on the Tax Court Judge’s conclusion that the 2010 payment was not authorized by any provision of the Actto argue that it cannot be recovered under subsections 160.1(1) and 160.1(3). However, as just explained, the refund was authorizedunder subparagraph 164(1)(a)(iii) and therefore made pursuant to a specific provision of the Act.

It follows that subsections 160.1(1) and160.1(3) could be validly invoked in support of the 2015 assessment. [76] The respondent further argued, in a communication submitted after the hearing, that if the 2010 reassessment was validly issuedand therefore allowed for a refund to be made pursuant to subparagraph 164(1)(a)(iii), no part of this refund was excessive since noreassessment was issued in order to bring the 2003 tax payable back from zero, as per the nil assessment, to the amount initially assessed. [77] This argument could be compelling (compare Canada v.

Bulk Transfer Systems Inc., 2005 FCA 94, 2005 D.T.C. 5192,paragraphs 19–21) were it not for the decision of the Supreme Court in Markevich v. Canada, 2003 SCC 9, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 94(Markevich) according to which no prior reassessment is needed in order for the Minister to determine that a taxpayer has received arefund in excess of the amount to which it was entitled.

Indeed, Markevich makes it clear that an excessive refund can be assessed even ifthe power to issue a reassessment for the year pursuant to subsection 152(4) has expired. [78] In this respect, I agree with the Tax Court Judge that subjecting the application of subsections 160.1(1) and 160.1(3) to theissuance of a prior reassessment constrained by a time limit would run against the plain language of these provisions which empower theMinister to determine that an excessive refund has been made and to recover it “at any time” by way of an assessment.

Here, thisdetermination necessarily flowed from the fact that the respondent generated a taxable capital gain totalling $3 952 238 in circumstanceswhere the tax paid on that account had been refunded, plus accrued interest, five years earlier. Nothing more was required in order forthe Minister to determine that there had been an excessive refund as described in subsection 160.1(1) and to recover it by issuing the2015 assessment pursuant to subsection 160.1(3).

This fully accords with the conclusion that was reached by the Supreme Court inMarkevich that the words “at any time” are to be given effect in accordance with their plain meaning (paragraph 16). As was explainedby the Tax Court Judge, this effect “would be greatly diminished if its application depended on a reassessment pursuant to anotherprovision of the Act which is subject to a limitation period” (reasons, paragraph 99). [79] Giving these words their plain meaning effectively allows for the determination that an excessive refund of

Part I tax has beenmade after the normal reassessment period has expired, but only for the purpose of allowing the Minister to recover tax that is owed anddetermined to have been improperly refunded. This power necessarily flows from the words used by Parliament which, as noted, providein express terms that there is no time limit as to when this recovery can take place (to that effect see the dissenting reasons of Rothstein,J.A. in Addison & Leyen Ltd. v.

Canada, 2006 FCA 107, [2006] 4 F.C.R. 532, as they were confirmed in 2007 SCC 33, [2007] 2 S.C.R.793, paragraph 90). [80] Finally, the respondent argues that the Minister cannot recover an excessive refund under subsection 160.1(1) unless the refundgiving rise to the excess had been claimed by the taxpayer (memorandum of the respondent, paragraphs 64, 75). However, nothing in thestatutory language requires that a refund be claimed in order for the excess to be recovered. The CRA Internal Technical

Interpretation(TI 2009-0334351I7, “Excessive Refunds”, January 29, 2010) invoked by the respondent in support of the contrary view is based on adecision rendered by the Tax Court in Matte v. The Queen, (TCC), [2004] 1 C.T.C. 2823, (2002), 56 D.T.C. 3876(Matte). Contrary to the assertion made in this technical

interpretation, Matte does not stand for the proposition that a taxpayer must have

claimed an amount in excess of that to which it was entitled in order for an excessive refund under subsections 160.1(1) and 160.1(3) to arise. Although the refund in issue in that case could not be made without being claimed ( Matte , paragraph 2 ), a refund pursuant to subparagraph 164(1) (a)(iii) can be made without being claimed.

I agree with the conclusion reached by the Tax Court Judge on this point (reasons, paragraph 105). [ 81 ] It follows that the respondent’s contention that the 2015 assessment was not issued in conformity with the Act must be rejected and that the legal validity of this assessment must be confirmed.

DISPOSITION [ 82 ] For the above reasons, I would allow the appeal with costs, set aside the decision of the Tax Court Judge and giving the judgment that he ought to have given, I would dismiss the appeal brought by Alberta before the Tax Court with costs, on the basis that the 2015 assessment was issued in conformity with the Act . Boivin J.A.: I agree. Rivoalen J.A.: I agree. ANNEX

PART I Income Tax DIVISION A Liability for Tax Tax payable by persons resident in Canada 2

(1) An income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act , on the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the year. … Assessment 152 (1) … … Definition of normal reassessment period

(3.1) For the purposes of subsections (4), (4.01), (4.2), (4.3), (5) and (9), the normal reassessment period for a taxpayer in respect of a taxation year is … (

b) in any other case, the period that ends three years after the earlier of the day of sending of a notice of an original assessment under this

Part in respect of the taxpayer for the year and the day of sending of an original notification that no tax is payable by the taxpayer for the year. … Assessment and reassessment

(4) The Minister may at any time make an assessment, reassessment or additional assessment of tax for a taxation year, interest or penalties, if any, payable under this Part by a taxpayer or notify in writing any person by whom a return of income for a taxation year has been filed that no tax is payable for the year, except that an assessment, reassessment or additional assessment may be made after the taxpayer’s normal reassessment period in respect of the year only if (

a) the taxpayer or person filing the return (

i) has made any misrepresentation that is attributable to neglect, carelessness or wilful default or has committed any fraud in filing the return or in supplying any information under this Act , or (ii) has filed with the Minister a waiver in prescribed form within the normal reassessment period for the taxpayer in respect of the year;

… Assessment deemed valid and binding

(8) An assessment shall, subject to being varied or vacated on an objection or appeal under this Part and subject to a reassessment, be deemed to be valid and binding notwithstanding any error, defect or omission in the assessment or in any proceeding under this Act relating thereto. … Where excess refunded 160.1

(1) Where at any time the Minister determines that an amount has been refunded to a taxpayer for a taxation year in excess of the amount to which the taxpayer was entitled as a refund under this Act , the following rules apply: (

a) the excess shall be deemed to be an amount that became payable by the taxpayer on the day on which the amount was refunded; and (

b) the taxpayer shall pay to the Receiver General interest at the prescribed rate on the excess (other than any portion thereof that can reasonably be considered to arise as a consequence of the operation of

section 122.5 or 122.61) from the day it became payable to the date of payment. … Assessment

(3) The Minister may at any time assess a taxpayer in respect of any amount payable by the taxpayer because of subsection (1) or (1.1) or for which the taxpayer is liable because of subsection (2.1) or (2.2), and the provisions of this Division (including, for greater certainty, the provisions in respect of interest payable) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, in respect of an assessment made under this section, as though it were made under

section 152 in respect of taxes payable under this Part, except that no interest is payable on an amount assessed in respect of an excess referred to in subsection (1) that can reasonably be considered to arise as a consequence of the operation of

section 122.5 or 122.61. … Refunds 164

(1) If the return of a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year has been made within 3 years from the end of the year, the Minister (

a) may, … (iii) on or after sending the notice of assessment for the year, refund any overpayment for the year, to the extent that the overpayment was not refunded pursuant to subparagraph (

i) or (ii); and (

b) shall, with all due dispatch, make the refund referred to in subparagraph (a)(iii) after sending the notice of assessment if application for it is made in writing by the taxpayer within the period within which the Minister would be allowed under subsection 152(4) to assess tax payable under this Part by the taxpayer for the year if that subsection were read without reference to paragraph 152(4)(a). … Interest on refunds and repayments

(3) If, under this section, an amount in respect of a taxation year (other than an amount, or a portion of the amount, that can reasonably be considered to arise from the operation of

section 122.5, 122.61 or 125.7) is refunded or repaid to a taxpayer or applied to another liability of the taxpayer, the Minister shall pay or apply interest on it at the prescribed rate for the period that begins on the day that is the latest of the days referred to in the following paragraphs and that ends on the day on which the amount is refunded, repaid or applied: … (

d) in the case of a refund of an overpayment, the day on which the overpayment arose; and … Idem

(3.1) Where at a particular time interest has been paid to, or applied to a liability of, a taxpayer under subsection 164(3) or 164(3.2) in respect of an overpayment and it is determined at a subsequent time that the actual overpayment was less than the overpayment in respect of which interest was paid or applied, (

a) the amount by which the interest that has been paid or applied exceeds the interest, if any, computed in respect of the amount that is determined at the subsequent time to be the actual overpayment shall be deemed to be an amount (in this subsection referred to as “the

amount payable”) that became payable under this Part by the taxpayer at the particular time; (

b) the taxpayer shall pay to the Receiver General interest at the prescribed rate on the amount payable computed from that particular time to the day of payment; and (

c) the Minister may at any time assess the taxpayer in respect of the amount payable and, where the Minister makes such an assessment, the provisions of this Division are applicable, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of the assessment as though it had been made under

section 152. … Definition of overpayment

(7) In this section, overpayment of a taxpayer for a taxation year means … (

b) where the taxpayer is a corporation, the total of all amounts paid on account of the corporation’s liability under this Part or Parts I.3, VI or VI.1 for the year minus all amounts payable in respect thereof. … Objections to assessment 165 (1) … Limitation on objections

(1.2) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (1.1), no objection may be made by a taxpayer to an assessment made under subsection 118.1(11), 152(4.2), 169(3) or 220(3.1) nor, for greater certainty, in respect of an issue for which the right of objection has been waived in writing by the taxpayer. … Appeal 169 (1) … Disposition of appeal on consent

(3) Notwithstanding

section 152, for the purpose of disposing of an appeal made under a provision of this Act , the Minister may at any time, with the consent in writing of the taxpayer, reassess tax, interest, penalties or other amounts payable under this Act by the taxpayer. …

Definitions 248 (1) … Tax payable

(2) In this Act , the tax payable by a taxpayer under any Part of this Act by or under which provision is made for the assessment of tax means the tax payable by the taxpayer as fixed by assessment or reassessment subject to variation on objection or on appeal, if any, in accordance with the provisions of that Part.