Large corporations must comply with stricter rules for their Notices of Objection. They must state the issues and the amount of money related to each issue. Failure to do so prevents an appeal on the issue.
“[11] The courts have not yet had the opportunity to fully consider the parameters of subsections 165(1.11) and 169(2.1) but there are themes that have emerged from the cases that have been decided:
“(a) a taxpayer is not required to describe each issue exactly but is required to describe it reasonably (Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. v. The Queen[2]);
“(b) the determination of what degree of specificity is required for an issue to have been described reasonably is to be made on a case by case basis (Potash);
“(c) a taxpayer may add new facts or reasons on appeal but not new issues (British Columbia Transit v. The Queen[3]);
“(d) if the proposed additional argument would result in the large corporation seeking greater relief than was previously sought, the courts are more likely to consider the argument to be a new issue rather than a reason (Potash; Telus Communications (Edmonton) Inc. v. The Queen[4]);
“(e) if the proposed additional argument would result in the large corporation seeking the same relief that was previously sought, the courts are more likely to consider the argument to be the same issue (British Columbia Transit; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. The Queen[5]); and
“(f) if the proposed additional argument would result in the large corporation seeking completely different relief than was previously sought, the courts are more likely to consider the argument to be a new issue rather than a reason (Bakorp Management Ltd. v. The Queen[6]).”
“[20] … There is no mechanism in the Act that would permit a large corporation to amend its Notice of Objection. Reading in such a mechanism would defeat the entire purpose of the large corporation rules.”
See Devon Canada Corporation v. The Queen, 2014 TCC (Graham)