Robinson – Federal Court finds that the 3-year Canada-UK MAP limitation period started when CRA incorrectly reassessed a UK citizen as a Canadian resident, not on the later UK assessment

The applicant was a Canadian and UK citizen who had previously filed income tax returns as a resident of Canada for the 2000 to 2015 taxation years. Following a CRA audit, it concluded that he owed taxes on his worldwide income as a resident of Canada, and found that he had provided insufficient support for his submission that he had been a UK resident rather than a Canadian resident. Accordingly, on September 7, 2017, it issued notices of reassessment for his 2006 to 2010 and 2014 taxation years for the unreported foreign income.

The taxpayer then proceeded to make a disclosure in 2019 to HMRC on the basis that he had been a resident of the UK from April 6, 2002 until April 5, 2017. On March 8 2021, HMRC assessed the taxpayer for his 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 taxation years based on those disclosures.

On January 25, 2022, the applicant submitted a request to the Canadian competent authority to initiate the mutual agreement procedure (MAP) pursuant to Art. 23 of the Canada-UK Convention (similar to Art. 25 of the OECD Model Convention) to address him being taxed as a resident of both countries. Art. 23 contained a limitation period, namely, that the application to initiate the MAP “must be submitted within three years from the first notification of the action resulting in taxation not in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.”

CRA concluded that the applicant's MAP request was filed outside this limitation period. In particular, it now agreed with the applicant that he had not been a resident of Canada and that the 2017 CRA reassessments were incorrect – so that those reassessments constituted an action not in accordance with the Convention – and, as the first such action, started the limitation period running.

In finding that this CRA decision was reasonable, Ngo J. stated:

In the Applicant’s case, he had clearly expressed to the Canadian tax authority that he should be considered a UK resident for taxation purposes. The result of the 2017 CRA Reassessment was the CRA charging tax to the Applicant. He then asserted, that when Canada imposed tax on him, this was taxation not in accordance with the Convention by Canada because of his UK residency claim. It was therefore reasonable for the CRA to conclude that the 2017 CRA Reassessment was an “action”, with the direct and necessary consequence of the charging of tax against the complainant contrary to the provisions of the Convention … .

Neal Armstrong. Summary of Robinson v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FC 854 under Treaties – Income Tax Conventions – Art. 26.