Nagel v. The Queen (February 15, 2018 – 2018 TCC 32, Lafleur J.).
Précis: Ms. Nagel was reassessed in February of 2016 for her 2013 taxation year. The reassessment was a nil assessment and showed her as resident in Saskatchewan. In November of 2016 she was again reassessed for 2013. The second reassessment was also a nil assessment and this time showed her as a resident of Nova Scotia. Ms. Nagel applied to the Tax Court for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal.
The application was denied since there is no appeal from a nil assessment. There was no order as to costs.
Decision: It is not entirely clear why Ms. Nagel wanted to appeal but the law on nil assessments is of great vintage and well settled:
 Again, since no tax is payable under the Second Reassessment, there is no reassessment of tax Ms. Nagel can object to or appeal from.
 The concerns that Ms. Nagel noted with respect to the reassessments pertain to: (i) her province of residence, as she would like to be considered a resident of Saskatchewan, (ii) the federal unused tuition, textbook and education tax credits (subsection 118.61(2) of the Act) as she is of the view that she is not entitled to the credit since she never reimbursed the student loans, and (iii) the GST determination. Having addressed the last two points in the previous section of these reasons, I will only address the first one hereunder.
 As this Court concluded in Weinberg Family Trust v The Queen, 2016 TCC 37 at para 12, 2016 DTC 1039, “[i]t has jurisdiction with respect to provincial tax only to the extent that the jurisdiction is conferred on it by the provinces”.
 Under the income tax statutes of both provinces of Nova Scotia (Income Tax Act, RSNS 1989, c 217, section 2 (definition of “Court”) and subsection 64(2)) and Saskatchewan (The Income Tax Act, 2000, SS 2000, c. I‑2.01, section 2 (definition of “court”) and subsection 98(2)), the jurisdiction to determine residency in a province lies with the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia and the Court of Queen’s Bench, respectively, and not with this Court.
The application was accordingly denied. There was no order as to costs.