http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/site/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/63243/index.do 
DouangChanh v. The Queen[1] (October 7, 2013) involved a notice of objection to an assessment (the “Prior Reassessment”) denying charitable tax credits. Subsequently, within the taxpayer’s normal reassessment period, he filed a T1 Adjustment Request form asking for the deduction of some carrying charges. The Minister issued a new reassessment (the “Latest Reassessment”) allowing the carrying charges claimed. The Latest Reassessment however was issued outside of his normal reassessment period. Roughly one and a half years later the Minister advised the taxpayer that the Latest Reassessment had nullified the notice of objection with respect to charitable tax credits and it was now too late to object to or file an extension application in connection with the Latest Reassessment. The taxpayer applied to the Tax Court to extend the time to file an objection to the Latest Reassessment.
The court held that the extension application was unnecessary since the Latest Reassessment was invalid because it was issued outside the normal reassessment period and did not nullify the taxpayer’s notice of objection to the Prior Reassessment:
[20] The respondent submits that the Latest Reassessment was made at the request of the applicant pursuant to s. 152(4.2) and therefore it is not statute barred. The respondent further submits that the applicant is precluded from objecting to the Latest Reassessment in these circumstances (s. 165(1.2)).
[21] The question to be determined is whether the Latest Reassessment was made pursuant to s. 152(4.2). I conclude that it was not on the basis that the applicant did not intend to make a request pursuant to s. 152(4.2).
[22] The request was made through a T1 Adjustment Request form. The form indicates that it should be used “to request an adjustment (a reassessment) to an individual income tax return.”
[23] The form was sent within the normal reassessment period and not long after the objection to the charitable donation was served. Shortly before this, the Minister had informed the applicant that no action would be taken on the file pending decisions on similar charitable donations.
[24] In these circumstances, I would have thought it very unlikely that the applicant intended to request a reassessment to be made after the normal reassessment period thereby removing his appeal rights with respect to the charitable donation.
[25] I would conclude that the applicant did not make a request for a reassessment pursuant to s. 152(4.2). In this case, the Latest Reassessment which was issued by notice dated October 18, 2011 is statute barred.
Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/site/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/63242/index.do
Chomatas v. The Queen[2] (October 7, 2013) was a case where the taxpayer applied to the Minister in 2013 for an extension of the time to file a notice of objection in respect of a GST assessment issued in 2008. The Minister denied the application and the taxpayer was unsuccessful in applying to the Tax Court:
[8] In this case, Mr. Chomatas sent an application to the Minister on January 28, 2013. This is several years after the time period expired on December 25, 2009.
[9] Mr. Chomatas submits that he had good reasons for not making the application until January 28, 2013. He states that he does not remember receiving the notice of assessment, that the CRA did not inform him of his rights to object, and that he was not aware of the debt until the deadline had passed. Further, the agent for Mr. Chomatas submits that the actions of the CRA led him to believe that the CRA decided not to issue the assessment.
[10] Even if this is true, it does not assist Mr. Chomatas. As confirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal in Schafer, Parliament has provided for a strict deadline which Courts cannot ignore even if the result is unfair. In addition, it is well established that incorrect information provided by the CRA is not grounds for overlooking clear statutory provisions. Errors on the part of the CRA may lead to other types of relief, but it does not enable this Court to overlook the requirement in s. 304(5)(a) of the Act.
[11] Accordingly, an order extending the time cannot be granted even if Mr. Chomatas did not receive the notice of assessment and did not receive other information regarding the debt within the deadline.
Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
[1] 2013 TCC 320.
[2] 2013 TCC 319.