In Gallant v R, 2012 TCC 119, the taxpayer filed returns for his 2006 and 2007 taxation years and claimed tuition tax credits, which he calculated in accordance with Schedule 11 to the T1. Unfortunately, Schedule 11 did not get the taxpayer to the right result under the rules in the Income Tax Act, and so the CRA reassessed the taxpayer in accordance with the Act. The taxpayer appealed to the Tax Court and argued, in effect, “Hey, this isn’t fair”, to which Justice Woods responded as follows:
[11] I would first comment that I agree with the appellant that it is unfair for the CRA to require a taxpayer to calculate a deduction in accordance with a form, and then to reassess on a different basis. Taxpayers should be able to rely on forms that are required to be included with income tax returns. No suggestion was given that taxpayers were warned about the problem with Schedule 11.
[12] The circumstances are exacerbated in this case because the CRA did not pick up on the problem until fortuitously the taxpayer requested a change to the income tax return. Accordingly, most taxpayers may have been assessed in accordance with the form.
[13] It is not enough, however, that a taxpayer has been unfairly dealt with by the CRA. Normally, this is not grounds for relief in this Court.
…
[17] The difficulty that I have with giving relief is the overriding principle that estoppel cannot be invoked to preclude the exercise of a statutory duty.
Appeal dismissed.
If not estoppel, then what about officially induced error? Although perhaps advice in a guide or the design of a schedule does not rise to the level required for that defence, which seems to require that an official actually dispense advice to the person in question. Still, hmm—
Estoppel or officially-induced error in law cannot bind the Crown — even when dispensed by an official — and it will not suspend the application of the ITA.