http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/72102/index.do 
Sentinel Hill Productions IV Corporation v. Canada (June 16, 2014 – 2014 FCA 161) was a decision on two consolidated appeals from a decision of the Tax Court which denied the taxpayers’ application for the determination of a point of law.
[2] The appellants in these consolidated appeals sought to have the following question determined:
Whether the notices of determination (“Partnership Determinations”) issued under subsection 152(1.4) of the Income Tax Act (“ITA”) should be vacated and the appeals consequently allowed (subparagraph 170(1)(b)(i), of the ITA) since the Minister concluded at a subsequent time (on or prior to March 31, 2010), after the time the Partnership Determinations were issued, that Sentinel Hill No. 207 Limited Partnership and SHAAE (2001) Master Limited Partnership (the “Partnerships”) and the 72 other limited partnerships did not exist for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2001 and December 31, 2002 (the “Periods”)
Subsection 152(1.4) of the Income Tax Act provides for the determination or redetermination of the tax attributes of a partnership, even though partnerships are not taxpayers:
Determination in respect of a partnership
(1.4) The Minister may, within 3 years after the day that is the later of
(a) the day on or before which a member of a partnership is, or but for subsection 220(2.1) would be, required under section 229 of the Income Tax Regulations to make an information return for a fiscal period of the partnership, and
(b) the day the return is filed,
determine any income or loss of the partnership for the fiscal period and any deduction or other amount, or any other matter, in respect of the partnership for the fiscal period that is relevant in determining the income, taxable income or taxable income earned in Canada of, tax or other amount payable by, or any amount refundable to or deemed to have been paid or to have been an overpayment by, any member of the partnership for any taxation year under this Part.
Subsection 152(1.7) makes such determinations or redeterminations binding upon all of the members of the partnership, subject to the rights of objection and appeal given to a designated member of the partnership:
Binding effect of determination
(1.7) Where the Minister makes a determination under subsection 152(1.4) or a redetermination in respect of a partnership,
(a) subject to the rights of objection and appeal of the member of the partnership referred to in subsection 165(1.15) in respect of the determination or redetermination, the determination or redetermination is binding on the Minister and each member of the partnership for the purposes of calculating the income, taxable income or taxable income earned in Canada of, tax or other amount payable by, or any amount refundable to or deemed to have been paid or to have been an overpayment by, the members for any taxation year under this Part; and
(b) notwithstanding subsections 152(4), 152(4.01), 152(4.1) and 152(5), the Minister may, before the end of the day that is one year after the day on which all rights of objection and appeal expire or are determined in respect of the determination or redetermination, assess the tax, interest, penalties or other amounts payable and determine an amount deemed to have been paid or to have been an overpayment under this Part in respect of any member of the partnership and any other taxpayer for any taxation year as may be necessary to give effect to the determination or redetermination or a decision of the Tax Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada.
In essence the taxpayer was arguing that since the Minister had taken the position that there was no partnership in existence the determination under appeal was a nullity and the appeal should be allowed.
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on three bases:
1. The point would not result in determination of all of the points at issue since the Crown had alternative arguments which assumed the existence of the partnership:
[6] First, the proposed question is premised on the unproven assumption that the partnerships did not exist during the relevant periods. As the Judge noted in her reasons at paragraph 21, the existence of the partnership is a disputed question. In her replies and amended replies to the notices of appeal and amended notices of appeal, the Minister advanced alternate positions as to whether the “partnerships” were partnerships at law. It would be an academic exercise to answer the proposed question before the issue of the existence of the partnership is settled.
2. The grounds asserted by the appellant had nothing to do with the correctness or validity of the determination:
[8] As such, I agree with the Judge (reasons, paragraphs 36 to 39) that the appellants seek to have the determinations vacated on grounds that have nothing to do with whether they are incorrect or invalid. This is contrary to well-established principles of law. The role of the Tax Court in an appeal of an assessment under the Act, or a determination, is to decide the validity and correctness of the assessment, or determination, based on the relevant provisions of the Act and the facts giving rise to the taxpayer’s statutory liability (Ereiser v. Canada, 2013 FCA 20, 444 N.R. 64).
3. The Tax Court judge did not err in considering whether the assessments issued to members of the partnership would be statute-barred since the appellant had raised that issue in the proceedings below:
[9] Third, I disagree that the Judge considered the wrong question. The appellants argue that the Judge erred by considering that the proposed question raised the issue of whether reassessments issued to individual partners would be statute-barred. However, as explained below, it was the appellants who first raised this issue.
While the court did not rule on the precise question raised by the appellants, it gave some fairly clear indications that it did not see much merit in their argument:
[12] Finally, I agree with counsel for the appellants that it is not appropriate in the circumstances for this Court to answer the proposed question, and the Court will not do so. That said, it is fair to observe that the appellants’ argument appears to be difficult to sustain in light of the statutory scheme. Specifically, subsection 152(1.4) permits the Minister to issue a notice of determination when a partnership information return is filed. The filing of such a return in effect constitutes a representation that the entity is in fact and law a partnership.
[13] Moreover, subsection 152(1.8) contemplates the specific scenario where, notwithstanding that a representation was made that a person was a member of a partnership, the Minister or a court of competent jurisdiction concludes the partnership did not exist.
In the result the two appeals were dismissed with one set of costs to the Crown.