James Pendergast

The Appellant corporation appealed the Minister's denial of its claim for the New Residential Rental Property Rebate (NRRPR) under subsection 256.2(3) of the Excise Tax Act.

The Appellant's shareholders had signed the agreements of purchase and sale for two residential properties because the seller refused to sell to a corporation.

The shareholders held the properties in bare trust for the Appellant, which paid the purchase price and GST/HST.

The Tax Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appellant was not the "recipient" of the supply as defined in section 123 of the Act, because it was not liable under the agreement to pay the consideration.

Relying on the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Cheema, the Court held that the trust arrangement was extraneous to the statutory requirement, which focuses on the legal relationship between the purchaser and the seller.

The applicants applied for an extension of time to file a notice of objection to a GST/HST reassessment that denied a new residential rental property rebate.

Shortly after the reassessment, the applicants had sent a letter to the CRA requesting a reassessment and providing documents.

The Minister argued this was not a valid notice of objection.

The Tax Court held that the letter constituted a valid notice of objection as it clearly communicated opposition to the reassessment.

Consequently, the application for an extension of time was dismissed as unnecessary, and the applicants were permitted to proceed with their appeal.