http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/98039/index.do 
Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. v. The Queen (October 7, 2014 – 2014 TCC 288, Favreau J.).
Précis: The appellant was assessed for its taxation year ended December 31, 2006 on July 14, 2011. It filed an objection and, subsequently, an appeal to the Tax Court. It was again assessed in respect of the 2006 taxation year on April 19, 2013. That assessment increased its net taxable income by roughly $2 million.
After an adjustment request by the taxpayer its taxation year ending October 31, 2007 was reassessed on September 3, 2013 reducing its tax payable by roughly $5.5 million. Again on October 3, 2013 its 2007 taxation year was reassessed reducing its tax payable by roughly $1 million. It appears to have filed one notice of objection to both reassessments and, subsequently, one notice of appeal to both reassessments.
The taxpayer moved for “orders of the Court that confirm that the reassessments made against it for the taxation years ending December 31, 2006, and October 31, 2007, constitute additional assessments and not reassessments vacating the previous assessments.”
The taxpayer’s motivation for the 2006 taxation year seems to have been based on subsection 165(7) of the
Income Tax Act (the “Act”):
Notice of objection not required — Where a taxpayer has served in accordance with this section a notice of objection to an assessment and thereafter the Minister reassesses the tax, interest, penalties or other amount in respect of which the notice of objection was served or makes an additional assessment in respect thereof and sends to the taxpayer a notice of the reassessment or of the additional assessment, as the case may be, the taxpayer may, without serving a notice of objection to the reassessment or additional assessment,
(a) appeal therefrom to the Tax Court of Canada in accordance with section 169; or
(b) amend any appeal to the Tax Court of Canada that has been instituted with respect to the assessment by joining thereto an appeal in respect of the reassessment or the additional assessment in such manner and on such terms, if any, as the Tax Court of Canada directs.
In other words it appears to have been seeking a ruling that the April 19, 2013 reassessment did not bring its appeal to an end and require that it file a fresh notice of objection.
The motivation in the case of the taxpayer’s 2007 taxation year is less clear. It does not appear from the decision whether the September 3 or October 3 reassessments (or both) were the subject of the motion.
In any event the Court held that the taxpayer’s motions would be dismissed but it could amend both notices of appeal within 3 months but that in the case of its 2007 taxation year it also had to amend its notice of objection to the September 3 and October 3, 2013 reassessments. There was no order as to costs.
Decision: This case is very difficult to fathom. As to the 2006 appeal, the Court seems to have just followed paragraph 165(7)(b) set out above:
[18] Since, by its notice of objection dated July 18, 2013, the applicant duly objected to the adjustments that were the subject of the reassessment made on April 19, 2013, for the 2006 taxation year and the requirements set out in subsections 165(1.11) and 169(2.1) of the Act were met, the Court authorizes the applicant to amend, by January 7, 2015, its notice of appeal to challenge its reassessment for the 2006 taxation year, in accordance with section 54 of the Rules.
As to the 2007 appeal the Court held:
[24] On November 29, 2013, the applicant served a notice of objection to the reassessments dated September 3 and October 3, 2013, with respect to the taxation year ending October 31, 2007. The notice of objection specifically refers to the reassessments dated September 3 and October 3 in its title and at paragraphs 221, 262 to 268 and 432. However, paragraphs 262 to 268 do not contain a sufficiently detailed description of the adjustments made by the Minister to make the reassessments dated September 3 and October 3, 2013.
[25] Paragraph 264 of the notice of objection states that an amount of $18,356,946 was added to the applicant’s income as “foreign accrual property income” but there is no specification that the changes were made to the applicant’s 2005 taxation year. The inclusion of that $18,356,946 in the applicant’s income for the 2005 taxation year resulted in a decrease of $15,664,647 in the “non-capital loss balance” for the 2005 taxation year. Consequently, that had an impact on the amount of “non-capital losses” that the applicant may apply to the 2007 taxation year under paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Act.
[26] During the hearing, counsel for the respondent suggested that the applicant specify in its notice of objection the relief described in the previous paragraph, as stated in subsection 165(1.11) of the Act, to enable it to appeal the adjustments in the reassessments dated September 3, and October 3, 2013, to the Tax Court of Canada.
[27] In the light of the foregoing, the Court authorizes the applicant to amend, by January 7, 2015, its notice of appeal to challenge its reassessments for the 2007 taxation year, in accordance with section 54 of the Rules, as long as the applicant first specifies in its notice of objection the relief sought with respect to the reassessments dated September 3, and October 3, 2013.
In essence then the taxpayer got the relief it sought, after a fashion, but without costs. What remains opaque is how the taxpayer objected to two reassessments in one document and where the Court obtained jurisdiction to order changes to the notice of objection filed in response to those reassessments.
Perhaps time will tell.