Strategies for advancing Canadian tax disputes

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Strategies for advancing Canadian tax disputes

canadaflag100x90.jpg

Taxpayers should familiarise themselves with the different options for overcoming the backlog of cases in the Canada Revenue Agency and Tax Court of Canada, by Carrie Aiken and Dan Jankovic of Blake, Cassels & Graydon

Increasingly, taxpayers are experiencing significant delays and expenses advancing and resolving Canadian tax disputes. Compounding the issue is the fact that the Canadian tax authorities are pursuing more aggressive positions in their assessments of tax, and there is a backlog of cases in both the internal appeals processes of the Canada Revenue Agency and appeals within the Tax Court of Canada. However, there are options available to advance tax disputes more efficiently.

Often, an assessment raises several independent issues on which the Minister of National Revenue is relying to reassess tax. In such a case, defending the multiple issues at the same time may cause additional delays or dilute the main issue. Provided the taxpayer and the Minister consent, subsection 171(2) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) permits the parties to request a hearing of only specific issues as opposed to all the issues at once. This permits tax litigants to be more strategic with their tax disputes. For example, a tax dispute may become less contentious if one of the issues is decided first. This option may also be attractive where one of the issues has larger financial implications. If the Tax Court of Canada disposes of the issue in favour of the taxpayer, the Minister must give effect to its decision (subject to its rights of appeal) on the decided issue without having to wait for the disposition of the other issues.

Questions of law and fact

Section 173 of the Income Tax Act permits the Minister and the taxpayer to put a question of law, a mixed question of law and fact, or a question of fact before the Tax Court of Canada for determination, provided both parties consent to the process. This provision allows a question to be advanced and a determination to be made by the Court at any stage of the tax dispute, including at the audit stage. The strategy is to avoid a full appeal of the issue or a drawn-out process by trying to get a specific matter resolved expeditiously.

Another option is to proceed under rule 58 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules. An application under this rule may be appropriate where one of the parties does not consent to a hearing under section 173 of the Income Tax Act. Under rule 58, the Tax Court of Canada has the power to grant an order that a question of law, fact, or mixed law and fact raised in a pleading be determined before hearing the appeal. This option may be advantageous (and is only available) where the determination of the question may have the result of disposing of all or part of the appeal, substantially shortening the hearing or decreasing costs.

Carrie Aiken (carrie.aiken@blakes.com) is a partner and
Dan Jankovic (dan.jankovic@blakes.com) is an associate in the Calgary office of Blake Cassels & Graydon, the principal Canadian correspondents for the Tax Disputes channel of www.internationaltaxreview.com.



more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

In looking at the impact of taxation, money won't always be all there is to it
Australia’s Tax Practitioners Board is set to kick off 2026 with a new secretary to head the administrative side of its regulatory activities.
Ireland’s Department of Finance reported increased income tax, VAT and corporation tax receipts from 2024; in other news, it’s understood that HSBC has agreed to pay the French treasury to settle a tax investigation
The Australian Taxation Office believes the Swedish furniture company has used TP to evade paying tax it owes
Supermarket chain Morrisons is facing a £17 million ($23 million) tax bill; in other news, Donald Trump has cut proposed tariffs
The controversial deal will allow US-parented groups to be carved out from key aspects of pillar two
Awards
ITR invites tax firms, in-house teams, and tax professionals to make submissions for the 2027 World Tax rankings and the 2026 ITR Tax Awards globally
Pillar two was ‘weakened’ when it altered from a multinational convention agreement to simply national domestic law, Federico Bertocchi also argued
Imposing the tax on virtual assets is a measure that appears to have no legal, economic or statistical basis, one expert told ITR
The EU has seemingly capitulated to the US’s ‘side-by-side’ demands. This may be a win for the US, but the uncertainty has only just begun for pillar two
Gift this article