1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Tax Reminders? Now There’s an App For That

We have previously blogged about litigation apps and the absence of Canadian litigation and tax litigation apps.

Yesterday, the Canada Revenue Agency introduced a new tool for tax compliance with the release of the first CRA app for businesses.

From the CRA’s mobile apps webpage:

The Business Tax Reminders mobile app is recommended for small and medium-sized businesses with annual revenue of $20 million or less and fewer than 500 employees. The app was created based on consultations with small and medium-sized businesses, and allows business users to:

  • create custom reminders for key CRA due dates related to instalment payments, returns, and remittances.
  • customize and tailor the reminder system for their personal business deadlines with either calendar or pop-up messages.

The Canada Revenue Agency is committed to improving services for small and medium-sized businesses by reducing red tape. We have listened to these businesses across the country and created our Business Tax Reminders mobile app to ensure the CRA’s online services meet the needs of businesses by helping them fulfil their tax obligations.

We applaud the CRA for its commitment to helping Canadian taxpayers comply with their tax obligations, and we look forward to seeing how this new app is used by Canadian businesses. For tax advisors, we expect that apps, downloads, and mobile reminders will likely become a new aspect of our tax dispute discussions with the CRA.

,

Tax Reminders? Now There’s an App For That

CRA: Tax treatment of Ponzi scheme investments

We have previously written about court decisions on the tax results arising from taxpayers’ (failed) investments in Ponzi schemes (see our posts on Roszko v. The Queen (2014 TCC 59), Johnson v. The Queen (2011 TCC 54) and (2012 FCA 253), Hammill v. The Queen (2005 FCA 252) and Orman v. Marnat (2012 ONSC 549)).

These decisions raise questions as to how the CRA may assess all aspects of the income earned and losses suffered by the duped investors. For example, while the cases focused on whether the taxpayer was required to report some of the returned funds as income, the tax treatment of losses after the collapse of the fraudulent scheme has not been considered.

The CRA has now provided some guidance on how it will administer the Income Tax Act (Canada) in respect of the income and losses arising from Ponzi schemes. In CRA Document No. 2014-0531171M6 “Fraudulent Investment Schemes” (July 3, 2014), the CRA stated:

  • Income inclusion – Amounts paid to a taxpayer that are returns on their investment should be included in the taxpayer’s income. The fact that the funds were not invested on behalf of the taxpayer does not change the nature of the transaction for the taxpayer.
  • Bad debt – If the investment was a fraudulent scheme, the taxpayer may be able to claim a bad debt under paragraph 20(1)(p) of the Act in respect of the lost investment funds. The amount of the bad debt claim will be subject to certain adjustments. The bad debt should be claimed in the year the fraud is discovered (i.e., the year in which fraud charges are laid by the Crown against the perpetrator, or at such earlier time as the debt is established to have become bad).
  • Losses – The taxpayer may be able to claim a capital loss or business investment loss:
    • Capital loss – The taxpayer may be able to claim a capital loss under paragraph 39(1)(b) of the Act, which may be carried back three years or forward indefinitely. A net capital loss may only be applied against a taxable capital gain.
    • Business investment loss – Under paragraph 39(1)(c), a business investment loss is a capital loss from a disposition of a share of a small business corporation or a debt owing to the taxpayer by a Canadian-controlled private corporation that was a small business corporation. Under paragraph 38(c) of the Act, one-half of a business investment loss is an allowable business investment loss, which may be deducted against all sources of income.
  • Other deductions – The taxpayer may be able to claim interest expenses or other carrying charges not previously claimed by filing a T1 Adjustment Request form.
  • Recovered amounts – Where the taxpayer recovers funds from a scheme (i.e., through a legal settlement or otherwise), these recovered amounts may be taxable as recovery of a previously deducted bad debt, recovery of a previously deducted business loss, or recovery of a previously deducted capital loss.
  • Taxpayer relief – The CRA will consider requests for taxpayer relief on a case-by-case basis.

This guidance is helpful, but there are many technical requirements for the operation of these provisions, and further it is not clear how the CRA’s administrative views accord with the case law. For example, at least three cases (Roszko, Orman and Hammill) have held that amounts paid out a fraudulent scheme are not income to the duped investor. In future cases, we expect the courts will continue to clarify the tax treatment of income and losses arising from failed Ponzi schemes.

,

CRA: Tax treatment of Ponzi scheme investments

Health Quest: Appeal allowed where Crown failed to properly plead assumptions

What is the result of the Crown’s failure to properly plead its assumptions in the Reply? This issue was considered by the Tax Court in Health Quest Inc. v. The Queen (2014 TCC 211) in which the Crown’s Reply included “assumptions” that were statements of mixed fact and law rather than facts alone.

The taxpayer was a distributor of modified and “off-the-shelf” therapeutic footwear for relief of various disabling conditions of the feet. During the reporting periods at issue, section 24.1 in Part II of Schedule VI of the Excise Tax Act stated that zero-rated supplies included footwear designed for use by an individual who has a crippled or deformed foot or other similar disability when the footwear is supplied on the written order of a medical practitioner. (The provision was amended in 2012 to broaden the definition to include written orders by a “specified professional”.) The taxpayer considered that most or all of the footwear it sold was zero-rated under s. 24.1.

The CRA audited the taxpayer for the period of January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009. Based on a sampling of the taxpayer’s sales (in the months of August and December 2009), the CRA assessed additional GST owing of $42,274.72 for the period.

In the Tax Court, the taxpayer argued that all of the shoes it sold were for a prescribed diagnosis and thus zero-rated. The Respondent argued that the “off-the-shelf” shoes sold by the taxpayer (i.e., sold “as-is” without modification) were not zero-rated and thus subject to GST.

Under section 6 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules of Procedure Respecting the Excise Tax Act (Informal Procedure), every Reply to a Notice of Appeal must contain (among other things) a statement of the findings or assumptions of fact made by the CRA when making the assessment and the reasons the Crown intends to rely on in support of the assessment. (The Tax Court’s other procedural rules contain substantially identical provisions – see, for example, section 49 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure)).

In Health Quest, the Crown’s Reply stated, “In so assessing the Appellant, the Minister relied on the following …

(a)        the facts stated and admitted above;

(b)        the Appellant was a GST/HST registrant;

(c)        the Appellant was required by the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended (the “Act”) to file its GST/HST returns on a quarterly basis;

(d)       the Appellant was a corporation involved in the supply of footwear which were specially modified by the Appellant or were specially designed by the manufacturer for persons with physical disabilities;

(e)        the products described in subparagraph 7(d) above are zero-rated for HST pursuant to Schedule VI of the Act;

(f)        the Appellant also supplied other products which were not zero-rated pursuant to Schedule VI of the Act; and

(g)        during the periods under appeal, the Appellant failed to collect tax of not less than $42,274.72 on its supply of products which were not zero-rated pursuant to Schedule VI of the Act.”

The Tax Court noted that paragraphs (f) and (g) were problematic in that they both contained statements of mixed fact and law, which the Federal Court of Appeal has stated have no place in the Minister’s assumptions (see Anchor Pointe Energy Ltd. v. the Queen (2003 FCA 294) and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. The Queen (2013 FCA 122)). In Anchor Pointe, the Court of Appeal stated,

[23] The pleading of assumptions gives the Crown the powerful tool of shifting the onus to the taxpayer to demolish the Minister’s assumptions. The facts pleaded as assumptions must be precise and accurate so that the taxpayer knows exactly the case it has to meet.

In Health Quest, the Tax Court determined the Crown’s key “assumptions” were merely the Respondent’s view on the application of the law to the facts of the appeal.

The Court noted that where the Crown has not set out any proper assumptions of fact in the pleadings, the evidentiary onus reverts to the Crown to establish the correctness of the assessment (see Pollock v. Minister of National Revenue (94 DTC 6050 (Fed. C.A.) and Brewster v. the Queen (2012 TCC 187)). In other words, the normal requirement that a taxpayer must adduce evidence to “demolish” the Crown’s assumptions is reversed and the Crown must prove its case.

In Health Quest, the Respondent’s only evidence was the testimony of the appeals officer. The Tax Court held the testimony did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the footwear in question was not zero-rated. The Court noted that it would have been beneficial to have product literature, scientific studies, or the testimony of medical professionals, and this type of evidence would have been essential to engage in a meaningful textual, contextual and purposive analysis of the applicable legislation (there are no previous cases that have considered the interpretation of section 24.1).

The Tax Court allowed the appeal.

The Court’s decision in Health Quest is a helpful reminder of the importance of including only facts and not legal arguments in the assumptions in a Reply. Taxpayers and their counsel should closely scrutinize the assumptions and reasons described in a Reply to ensure the pleading conforms with the Tax Court’s rules.

, ,

Health Quest: Appeal allowed where Crown failed to properly plead assumptions

Bolton Steel Tube: TCC Orders Crown to Reassessment in Accordance with Settlement‏

In Bolton Steel Tube Co. Ltd. v. The Queen (2014 TCC 94), the Tax Court of Canada allowed the taxpayer’s motion requesting an Order that would require the CRA to reassess the taxpayer in accordance with the terms of a settlement agreement. In doing so, the Tax Court discussed certain principles regarding settlement agreements and the resulting reassessments.

In Bolton Steel Tube, the CRA reassessed the taxpayer for its 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 taxation years on the basis that the taxpayer failed to report income in each of those taxation years (the “2007 Reassessment”).

In 1996, the taxpayer reported $1.2 million of income. The CRA added approximately $600,000 of unreported income for total income of $1.8 million. During examinations for discovery, the CRA’s representative admitted that approximately $200,000 of the $600,000 increase should not have been made. Accordingly, for the 1996 taxation year, the maximum amount of income the CRA could have added as unreported income was $400,000. The CRA further confirmed this admission in its Reply.

On June 15, 2012, the taxpayer delivered to the Crown an offer to settle which proposed to settle the appeals on the basis that (i) the CRA would vacate the reassessments for 1994, 1995 and 1997, and (ii) the CRA would reassess the 1996 taxation year to add $403,219 to the taxpayer’s income and impose a penalty under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”). The Crown accepted this offer without further negotiation, and the parties entered Minutes of Settlement on these terms.

Following the settlement, the CRA issued a reassessment that calculated the taxpayer’s income for its 1996 taxation year to be $2,266,291, essentially adding $403,219 to the $1.8 million that had been previously assessed (the “2012 Reassessment”). The result was illogical: The agreed amount of unreported income – $403,219 – was added twice, and the $200,000, which the CRA had admitted was not to be added to the taxpayer’s income, was included as well.

In requesting the Order, the taxpayer argued that:

The 2012 Reassessment was not supported on the facts and the law;

The 2012 Reassessment violated the principle that the CRA cannot appeal its own assessment; and

The 2012 Reassessment was made without the taxpayer’s consent, which would be required pursuant to subsection 169(3) of the Act.

The Crown argued that if the 2012 Reassessment was varied or vacated then there had been no meeting of the minds, the settlement was not valid, and the 2007 Reassessment should remain under appeal.

The Tax Court agreed with the taxpayer on all three arguments.

With respect to the first argument, the Tax Court found the CRA’s interpretation of the Minutes of Settlement to be “divorced from the facts and law”. The Crown’s position was unsupportable since settlements must conform with the long-standing principal from Galway v M.N.R. (74 DTC 6355 (Fed. C.A.)) that settlements must be justified under, and in conformity with, the Act. In Bolton Steel Tube, the Tax Court went as far to say “even if both parties consented to settling in this manner, it could not be permitted” and “there is nothing to support the [Crown's] interpretation and nothing to support the [Crown's] further contention that the [taxpayer] offered this amount in exchange for other years to be vacated”.

With respect to the arguments surrounding subsection 169(3) of the Act, the Tax Court found that the taxpayer had not consented to having its income increased by the amount in the 2012 Reassessment.

The Crown argued that subsection 169(3) of the Act, which allows the CRA to reassess an otherwise statute-barred year upon settlement of an appeal, also allows the CRA to increase the amount of tax which the CRA could reassess despite subsection 152(5) of the Act. Subsection 152(5) of the Act is the operative provision that prevents the CRA from increasing an assessment of tax. Here, the Tax Court maintained the longstanding principle that a reassessment cannot be issued that results in an increase of tax beyond the amount in the assessment at issue. This is tantamount to the CRA appealing its own reassessment, which is not permitted, and thus renders the 2012 Reassessment void. We note that the Tax Court also considered the 2012 Reassessment to be void on the basis that it was an arbitrary assessment.

The Tax Court rejected the Crown’s argument that the settlement was ambiguous and therefore there was no meeting of minds as would be required for a valid contract. The Crown argued that the settlement was not valid and therefore the years under appeal should remain in dispute. The Tax Court turned to fundamental principles of contractual interpretation and found that the contract validly existed since it could reasonably be expected that the Crown would have known that the addition of $403,219 was to be added to the appellant’s income as originally reported (i.e., $1.2 million) and not to the income amount in the 2007 Reassessment (i.e., $1.8 million).

Accordingly, the Tax Court rejected the Crown’s argument, found that the settlement was valid and that the Minister should reassess on the basis that $403,219 should be added to the taxpayer’s income as originally reported. Since the 2012 reassessment was not valid, and therefore did not nullify the 2007 reassessment, and a notice of discontinuance had not yet been filed, the Tax Court continued to have jurisdiction over the appeal.

The result of this motion was a clear victory for the taxpayer and for common sense. It serves as a reminder that precision is essential when entering into settlement agreements.

, ,

Bolton Steel Tube: TCC Orders Crown to Reassessment in Accordance with Settlement‏

Spruce Credit: Avoidance Transactions and the Duke of Westminster

In Spruce Credit Union v. The Queen (2014 FCA 143) the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s interpretation and application of the inter-corporate dividend deduction under subsection 112(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the “Act”). The Court of Appeal also considered the interpretation of “avoidance transaction” for purposes of the general anti-avoidance rule (“GAAR”) in section 245 of the  Act.

Spruce Credit Union (“Spruce”) was a member of a network of credit unions providing financial services to individuals in British Columbia. Two separate provincially-owned entities were responsible for insuring the deposits of B.C. credit unions during the relevant period: the Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation (“CUDIC”) and the Stabilization Central Credit Union of British Columbia (“STAB”).

Certain regulatory changes required that funds held by STAB were to be transferred to CUDIC. After considering alternatives, it was decided that CUDIC would assess the member credit unions the amount in aggregate necessary to meet the fund requirement, and STAB would pay a dividend on its Class A shares to the credit unions, roughly equal to the assessment. In fact, two dividends were declared and paid: (a) “Dividend A”, from STAB’s “aggregate cumulative investment income”, and (b) Dividend B, from STAB’s “aggregate cumulative assessment income”.

The Canada Revenue Agency (the “CRA”) reassessed Spruce, denying the inter-corporate dividend deduction (under subsection 112(1) of the Act) in respect of Dividend B (Dividend A was not reassessed). The CRA assessed Spruce on two grounds: (a) the dividend was not deductible under ordinary rules, but rather was governed by specific rules in the Act pertaining to credit unions, and (b) the GAAR applied.

The Tax Court (2012 TCC 357) held the deduction under subsection 112(1) was available to Spruce in respect of Dividend B. Further, there was no “avoidance transaction” and therefore the GAAR could not apply. (Note: The Tax Court’s costs award in Spruce Credit (2014 TCC 42) was not considered in the present case. That decision is the subject of a separate appeal before the Federal Court of Appeal (Court File No. A-96-14).)

On appeal, the Crown argued that the Tax Court erred because it was “inappropriate to consider whether the taxpayer chose the particular transaction among alternatives primarily based on tax considerations”. In the Crown’s view, the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in MacKay v. The Queen (2008 FCA 105) required the Court to consider whether the non-tax objective could have been obtained without the particular impugned transaction or through an alternative transaction.

In the present appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal held the lower court had made no error in respect of its findings regarding the availability of the deduction under subsection 112(1). Further, the Court of Appeal rejected the Crown’s arguments regarding the GAAR.

The Court held that when determining whether a particular transaction is an avoidance transaction, the existence of an alternative transaction that may have attracted additional tax is only one factor to consider. The very existence of such alternative transaction is not, in and of itself, determinative of whether there has been an avoidance transaction. The fact that this alternative transaction exists is only one consideration in determining whether any transaction in a series in an avoidance transaction.

The Federal Court of Appeal noted that the Crown’s suggested interpretation would undermine the long-standing Duke of Westminster principle in Canadian tax law that taxpayers are free to organize their affairs in a manner to pay the least amount of tax within the bounds of the law. The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed the validity of the Duke of Westminster principle in numerous GAAR decisions.

It is not entirely clear what distinction may be made between the facts and reasoning in the present case and those in MacKay. In Spruce Credit, there was a regulatory regime that required compliance and which necessitated the transfer of funds from STAB to CUDIC. The taxpayers chose a tax-efficient manner in which to achieve the regulatory compliance. In MacKay, the taxpayers choose a course of tax-efficient planning based on a voluntary acquisition of certain real property. That said, in neither case is this distinction particularly clear.

Perhaps future court decisions may provide some guidance on this point and on the interpretation of “avoidance transaction” generally. At the time of publication of this article, the Crown had not yet sought leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

A longer version of this article will appear in an upcoming edition of CCH’s Tax Topics.

, ,

Spruce Credit: Avoidance Transactions and the Duke of Westminster

CRA Update: Aggressive Tax Planning

At the Toronto Centre Canada Revenue Agency & Tax Professionals Breakfast Seminar on June 10, 2014, the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) provided an update on selected CRA Compliance Measures in the Aggressive Tax Planning Division. The update was provided by Len Lubbers, Manager, GAAR and Technical Support, Aggressive Tax Planning Division of the Compliance Programs Branch.

Mr. Lubbers displayed and referred to a collection of powerpoint slides (some of which contained detailed statistics), but unlike previous seminars the CRA did not distribute copies of the slides during or after the presentation.

The CRA provided updates on (i) reportable tax avoidance transactions, (ii) the CRA’s related party initiative, (iii) the T1135 foreign income verification statement, (iv) gifting tax shelters, and (v) third party penalties. Here is a brief recap of some of the highlights from the presentation:

Reportable Tax Avoidance Transactions

  • New subsection 237.3 of the Income Tax Act, which addresses reportable transactions, became effective as of June 26, 2013, with retroactive effect to January 1, 2011;
  • Taxpayers who must report a transaction under subsection 237.3 must file form RC312 “Reportable Transaction Information Return“;
  • The deadline for 2012 and earlier years was October 23, 2013, and for subsequent years the RC312 information return is due by June 30 of the year following the transaction;
  • The CRA is currently reviewing the forms filed as of October 2013. The CRA did not disclose the number of RC312 forms that have been filed.

Related Party Initiative/High Net Worth Individual Program

  • The related party initiative program was piloted in 2005 and fully adopted in 2009;
  • The CRA considers that the title “Related Party Initiative” was “not particularly descriptive” of the program;
  • Initially, the program was targeted at individuals with a net worth of $50 million or more and where a taxpayer had 30 or more entities in a corporate group;
  • Several recent changes have expanded the scope of this initiative – namely, the CRA eliminated the requirement that the taxpayer’s wealth be held in 30 or more corporate entities;
  • Additionally, the $50 million threshold for individuals will be relaxed to include corporate groups where there are significant assets held by a group of individuals. For example, consider three individuals that own companies valued at $100 million. Separately, these individuals would not meet the $50 million threshold, but under the new parameters these individuals will be included in the audit program if there is sufficient “economic interdependence”;
  • Further, the long-form “questionnaire” issued by the CRA to taxpayers under audit in the program will now be used by the CRA to gather information from high-net worth individuals who are not under audit;
  • The CRA has formed audit teams in the Aggressive Tax Planning Division to handle these files (previously, these files were handled by audit teams in the Large Business Audit Division).

T1135 Foreign Income Verification Statement

  • The T1135 Foreign Income Verification Statement was introduced in 1995 as a response to concerns about the growing popularity of the use of international tax havens;
  • A revised T1135 form was issued in June 2013;
  • Given the severity of penalties which result from failure to file the T1135 information form, the CRA recommends a voluntary disclosure be made by taxpayers.

Gifting Tax Shelters

  • The CRA continues to monitor and reassess gifting tax shelters;
  • As of 2014, the CRA has reassessed 189,000 taxpayers and denied more than $3 billion of donation tax credit claims;
  • The CRA has revoked the registration of charities that were involved in gifting tax shelters, and the CRA has imposed $162 million of third-party penalties;
  • The CRA noted that the number of participants in tax shelters has been decreasing (i.e., 2012: 8,410 participants vs. 2013: 2,517 participants). The total donations to gifting tax shelters has also decreased (i.e., 2012: $266,675,953 vs. 2013: $7,518,712);
  • The CRA noted the new rule in subsection 225.1(7) that requires a taxpayer to pay 50% of the amount assessed (or the amount in dispute);
  • As of 2013, for taxpayers who participate in a tax shelter, the CRA will not assess a taxpayer’s return until the CRA has audited the tax shelter. In such cases, the CRA will assess a taxpayer’s return if he/she agrees to have the tax shelter credit claim removed from the return.

Third-Party Civil Penalties

  • Section 163.2 was introduced in 2000 (section 285.1 of the Excise Tax Act contains a similar penalty);
  • The CRA’s views on third party penalties is found in Information Circular IC-01-1 “Third Party Civil Penalties” (September 18, 2001);
  • Under section 163.2 there are two types of penalties: a tax planner penalty (under subsection 163.2(2)) and a tax preparer penalty (under subsection 163.2(4)). The CRA noted that both could apply to a taxpayer, but the maximum amount of the penalty in such a case would be the greater of the two amounts (i.e., the penalties are not combined (see subsection 163.2(14));
  • The process for the (potential) application of a penalty under section 163.2 is as follows: The local CRA auditor will gather facts of the taxpayer’s activities and circumstances. If a third party penalty may be applied, the auditor will refer the file to his/her senior manager in the local office. If the senior manager agrees that a penalty may be applied, the file will be referred to the CRA’s Third Party Penalty Review Committee at the CRA’s Ottawa headquarters. A third party penalty will only be applied upon the approval of the Third Party Penalty Review Committee;
  • 195 files have been referred to the Third Party Penalty Review Committee. Of these files, the CRA has applied a penalty in 92 files (for penalties totalling $181 million), has declined to apply a penalty in 87 files, and 16 files remain on-going;
  • The CRA awaits the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Guindon v. The Queen (Docket # 35519), which is tentatively scheduled to be heard on December 5, 2014. See our earlier blog posts on the Guindon case here and here.

, , , ,

CRA Update: Aggressive Tax Planning

Morris Meadows: Judge Declines Job Offer and Workers Were Employees

In Morris Meadows Country Holidays and Seminars Ltd. v. M.N.R. (2014 TCC 191), the Tax Court considered whether certain hospitality workers were employees or independent contractors for the purposes of the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Pension Plan.

Morris Meadows offered meeting facilities, sleeping facilities and dining facilities. In doing so it hired workers, as required, to perform certain duties such as cleaning, gardening, maintenance, cooking and serving food.

The CRA classified the workers as employees, and assessed the taxpayer for additional CPP contributions and EI premiums. The taxpayer appealed on the basis that the workers were (i) independent contractors or (ii) casual employees not employed for the purposes of Morris Meadows’ business.

In respect of the evidence, the Tax Court made this comment on a witness’s testimony:

[3] Mr. Morris, the moving force behind Morris Meadows, was the only witness for the Appellant. He was refreshingly forthright in his testimony to the point of offering me work as a cook at Morris Meadows. I declined the offer.

On the issue of the classification of the workers, the Tax Court considered the applicable tests in 671122 Ontario Ltd. v Sagaz Industries Canada Inc. (2001 SCC 59) and 1392644 Ontario Inc. o/a Connor Homes v Minister of National Revenue (2013 FCA 85) (see our previous post on Connor Homes).

In the present case, the Court held there was no written agreement expressing intent and thus no mutual intent (as per the Connor Homes analysis). The Court then pursued the traditional Sagaz/Wiebe Door analysis to determine whether the workers performed their services in business on their own account. On this point, the Court concluded that all but one of the workers were employees.

On the issue of whether the workers were engaged in employment of a casual nature other than for the purpose of the employer’s trade or business (see subsection 5(2) of the Employment Insurance Act and subsection 6(2) of the Canada Pension Plan), the Tax Court cited the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Roussy v Minister of National Revenue ([1992] F.C.J. No. 913), which stated:

[7] … the duration of the time a person works is not conclusive in categorizing employment as casual; the length of time may be a factor to be considered, but a more important aspect is whether the employment is “ephemeral” or “transitory” or, if you will, unpredictable and unreliable. It must be impossible to determine its regularity. In other words, if someone is spasmodically called upon once in a while to do a bit of work for an indeterminate time, that may be considered to be casual work. If, however, someone is hired to work specified hours for a definite period or on a particular project until it is completed, this is not casual, even if the period is a short one.

The Tax Court held that the workers were engaged in unpredictable “part-time” work rather than casual employment. Further, the Court noted that Morris Meadows advertised its dining facilities (available for business meetings or weddings), hired workers to serve the food, and profited from such commerce. In the Court’s view, Morris Meadows was in a business to which the employment related, and the casual employment was for the purpose of Morris Meadows’ business. The Court held the workers were not engaged in casual employment for the purposes of the EI Act and the CPP.

The Court allowed the appeals only in respect of the one worker who was an independent contractor.

, ,

Morris Meadows: Judge Declines Job Offer and Workers Were Employees

Roitelman: Fraud and the Due Diligence Defence

In Roitelman v. The Queen (2014 TCC 139), the Tax Court considered whether a director could establish that he had been duly diligent in his attempts to prevent his company’s failure to remit source deductions where he had delegated responsibility for the company’s bookkeeping and tax filings to an employee.

Background

The taxpayer owned an electrical contracting business that focused primarily on commercial and industrial contracting, installations and service work. Initially, the taxpayer personally completed all payroll and remittance filings. As his business expanded, the taxpayer was required to travel more frequently, thus spending less time in his office. Consequently, the taxpayer hired and trained a bookkeeper. He oversaw her work and at the outset ensured remittances were made in a timely fashion. After the employee assumed responsibility for the bookkeeping, the corporation did not remain current in its remittance obligations.  From August 2005 to March 2008, the CRA sent five letters to the corporation regarding repeated failures to remit. From October 2006 to March 2008, the CRA sent seven Notices of Assessment in respect of the unremitted source deductions. The taxpayer did not receive nor was he personally aware of many of these letters and assessments. Later, after the bookkeeper had been dismissed, the taxpayer discovered hidden documents and unsent remittance cheques in various locations in the office.

For 2006 and 2007, the CRA assessed the taxpayer for directors’ liability for unremitted source deductions under subsection 227.1(1) of the Income Tax Act. The taxpayer appealed to the Tax Court and relied on the due diligence defence under subsection 227.1(3) of the ITA.

Tax Court

The Tax Court allowed the appeal. The Court found the taxpayer established a due diligence defence and thus he was not personally liable for the unremitted amounts.

The Court reviewed the key decisions on the issue, and noted that the applicable test from Buckingham v. The Queen (2011 FCA 142) is objective and contemplates the degree of care, diligence and skill exercised by the director in preventing a failure to remit. The Court also cited Balthazard v. The Queen (2011 FCA 331) for the proposition that after-the-fact behavior and corrective measures can be relevant in certain circumstances.

In Roitelman, the Court compared the personal actions of the taxpayer to the reasonably prudent person and emphasized that the director’s interaction with the bookkeeper should not be analyzed on in hindsight but, rather, with a view of the circumstances that existed during the relevant period:

[28] The test does not dictate that the positive steps taken must be effective in ensuring future compliance but only that a director takes those steps and that those steps would be the proactive steps that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in comparable circumstances.

The Court stated that it was reasonable for the taxpayer to expect his bookkeeper to bring any essential correspondence to his attention, and it was reasonable for him to believe that when he signed remittance cheques that they were being forwarded to the Receiver General. There was no evidence that the taxpayer benefited or intended to benefit in any way from the company’s failure to remit.

Despite his actions (i.e., hiring and training the bookkeeper, delegating responsibility, etc.), the taxpayer was unable to discover or ascertain the extent of the remittance failures. The bookkeeper thwarted his attempts to ensure compliance. The Court held that the taxpayer could not reasonably have known that the bookkeeper would engage in fraudulent and misleading activities.

Roitelman is an interesting case because there are very few decisions in which a taxpayer is able to establish a due diligence defence where he/she delegates responsibility for bookkeeping/remittances and relies on the work of that other person. In Kaur v. The Queen (2013 TTC 227), the Tax Court stated, “… The director’s oversight duties with respect to [remittance obligations] cannot be delegated in their entirety to a subordinate, as was done in the present case.” In Roitelman, the taxpayer had admitted that he relied on “blind faith” that the remittances had been made in a timely fashion. However, the result in Roitelman reminds us that such reliance may still be reasonable where there was deceit and fraud perpetrated on the director by a subordinate.

,

Roitelman: Fraud and the Due Diligence Defence

Regulation of Bitcoin Around the World

Governments and tax authorities continue to develop their fiscal and tax positions relating Bitcoins. Many countries are releasing warnings about the risks associated with the use of Bitcoins, with some providing more concrete guidance on regulation and tax treatment of the digital currency.

Earlier this year, the United States Law Library of Congress surveyed over 40 countries for their official stances on Bitcoin to determine whether and how Bitcoins are used, regulated and taxed in those foreign jurisdictions. Most of the comments addressed three main themes: Bitcoin’s status (or lack thereof) as legal tender, consumer protection, and taxation.

Most notable in the survey are China and Brazil: Both countries have imposed significant regulations with respect to Bitcoins. In China, Bitcoins are treated as a special virtual commodity. It is not considered a currency, and banks and payment institutions are prohibited from dealing in Bitcoin. Brazil enacted a law in late-2013 that has created the possibility of normalization of electronic currencies like Bitcoin. The law lists the principles that must be observed by the payment arrangements and institutions, according to the parameters to be established by the Brazilian Central Bank.

Brazil stands alone with its Bitcoin regulation amongst its Central and South American counterparts. Neighboring jurisdictions have not provided for any formal regulation of the virtual currency despite its increased use. In Chile, a group of American Libertarians founded an organic farming community with an economy based on Bitcoins. In Nicaragua, an American banker bought a plot of land in one of the most important tourist areas in the country for 80 Bitcoins (roughly USD $72,000 at the time) and has since been encouraging the adoption of Bitcoin.

The United Kingdom announced that it will treat Bitcoins like any other form of payment for tax purposes: Value Added Tax will be due in the normal way from suppliers of any goods or services sold in exchange for Bitcoins. The European Union (EU) has passed no specific legislation relative to the status of the Bitcoin as a currency. In France, Germany, Finland and Estonia, the authorities have stated that Bitcoin is an alternative means of payment but not an official currency, and as a result revenues generated are subject to taxation.

The Central Bank of the Russian Federation stated that services of Russian legal entities aimed at assisting the exchange of Bitcoins for goods, services, or currencies are a “dubious activity” associated with money laundering and terrorism financing. The statement recommended that Russian individuals and legal entities refrain from transactions involving Bitcoins. Similarly, the Reserve Bank of India issued a public notice to users, holders and traders of virtual currencies (including Bitcoins) regarding the potential risks, financial and otherwise, to which they are exposed. Following the advisory, India’s largest Bitcoin trading platform suspended its operations, citing the notice.

At present, Hong Kong has no legislation directly regulating Bitcoins and other virtual currencies. However, existing laws provide sanctions against unlawful acts involving Bitcoins, such as fraud or money laundering. Singapore has reportedly published tax advice with respect to Bitcoins, noting that the digital currency is not considered a good nor does it qualify as currency but will be assessed under the Goods and Services Tax. Malaysia and Japan have not issued statements regarding Bitcoins.

As for the countries not surveyed by the United States or countries that have yet to take an official position on Bitcoins, time will tell as to how the digital currency will be adopted and integrated in different jurisdictions.

For now, the regulatory and tax discussions are as young as the currency. As Bitcoin use and acceptance increases, fiscal and tax authorities will face a more complex debate that will demand more than simply providing public warnings of the risk of Bitcoin use.

,

Regulation of Bitcoin Around the World

Bitcoin Users Face Regulatory “Patchwork”

In the International Tax Review, Laura Gavioli (of Dentons’ Dallas office) and I discuss the Canada and U.S. approaches to the regulation and tax treatment of Bitcoin currency. We also discuss the approach taken in several other jurisdictions around the world.

,

Bitcoin Users Face Regulatory “Patchwork”