“[33] In the circumstances of this case, CRA’s determination not to accept the Form T661 as submitted by the Applicant was not procedurally unfair. Not only was this determination reasonable for the reasons stated above, it did not, as the Applicant contends, wrongfully convert an appealable SR&ED claim into a non-appealable non-filing. The Minister did not deprive the Applicant of any procedural rights because the Applicant could have filed the Form some 12 months earlier than it did when it filed its income tax return for 2012.
[34] In this case, the Applicant, for whatever reason, failed to follow the advice contained in paragraph 2.1 of the Policy, which states in part that: “Although the claimant has an additional 12 months after the income tax return filing due date for the year, the claimant is advised to file the prescribed form for SR&ED expenditures, on or before the filing due date of the income tax return.” The Applicant also appears to have either disregarded or failed to heed the warning in paragraph 7.2 of the Policy, which states:
If prescribed forms are filed on or before the SR&ED reporting deadline (see section 6.0), but they do not contain all the prescribed information in respect of the expenditures (see section 4.1) being claimed or the prescribed information in respect of the ITC amount earned on the expenditures (see section 4.2); the claimant will not be considered to have met the filing requirements for these expenditures or ITC. If the forms are reviewed by the CRA before the SR&ED reporting deadline, the CRA will advise the claimant of any deficiencies and the claimant will be allowed, up to the SR&ED reporting deadline, to provide any missing information. The onus is on the claimant to file the prescribed forms containing the prescribed information on time. [Emphasis in original]”
AFD Petroleum Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) (Boswell, J.)