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

Auditor General Provides Recommendations for Improving CRA Review of Objections

Under the federal Income Tax Act, the Canada Revenue Agency must consider a taxpayer’s objection and must vacate, confirm or vary the underlying tax assessment. This review must be completed “with all due dispatch”.

Unfortunately, no specific timeline is required for the CRA’s review of an objection (unlike the many specific deadlines imposed on taxpayers pursuant to the Income Tax Act or otherwise). Generally, a taxpayer’s only recourse in a case of excessive delay is to request interest relief or make a service complaint to the Office of the Taxpayer’s Ombudsman. The CRA has stated that it is aware of these potential delays, and has implemented service standards in respect of the various types of objections it receives each year

On November 29, 2016, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada released its report on the CRA’s review of income tax objections and included the following summary of its conclusions:

We concluded that the Canada Revenue Agency did not process income tax objections in a timely manner.

Although the Agency had developed and reported performance indicators for the objection process, the indicators were incomplete and inaccurate. Specifically, there was no indicator or target for the time that taxpayers should wait for decisions on their objections.

In addition, the Agency did not adequately analyze or review decisions on income tax objections and appeals, and there was insufficient sharing of the results of these objection and court decisions within the Agency.

This issue is very well-known to many Canadians (and their professional tax advisors) who have filed and pursued objections, and it is not surprising when you consider the CRA currently has an inventory of more than 171,000 objections in respect of personal and corporate income taxes totaling more than $18 billion.

Interestingly, the report notes that the amount of federal income tax dollars in dispute more than tripled from $6.2 billion in 2005-06 to $18.8 billion in 2013-14, and the amount in dispute has remained around $18 billion in 2014-15 and 2015-16.

The report recommends the following:

  • The CRA should provide timelines for resolving objections
  • The CRA should develop and implement an action plan with defined timelines and targets for reducing the inventory of objections
  • The CRA should review the objection process to identify and implement modifications to improve the timely resolutions of objections
  • The CRA should modify its performance indicators so that it may accurately measure and report on its performance
  • The CRA should review and share the results where objections are decided in favour of taxpayers in such a way that may improve the quality of audit results

Minister of National Revenue Hon. Diane Lebouthillier released a statement in response to the Auditor General’s report, and stated (in part): “An action plan is already underway to reduce processing times and it will be ready at the beginning of 2017.”

,

Auditor General Provides Recommendations for Improving CRA Review of Objections

Tax Court: CRA Employee May Not Testify as Expert

In HLP Solution Inc. v. The Queen (2015 TCC 41 ) the Tax Court held that a CRA employee lacked the necessary impartiality to testify as an expert witness because of her prior involvement in auditing the taxpayer.

Background

The taxpayer was a software company that claimed Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) tax credits for the 2009 taxation year. The CRA reassessed to deny the SR&ED credit claims.

In the Tax Court, the taxpayer challenged the qualification of the CRA’s expert witness on the basis that she did not have the necessary impartiality to testify as an expert witness in the appeal. The Tax Court held a voir dire to determine whether the Crown’s proposed expert witness could testify in the appeal.

The proposed expert witness held a doctorate in computer science and was employed with the CRA as a Research and Technology Advisor (RTA). The taxpayer’s allegation of impartiality was not based on the fact that the proposed expert witness was employed with the CRA. Rather, the taxpayer argued that it was the proposed expert witness’s involvement in every stage of the file that impugned her impartiality.

The Crown submitted that it is rare for a court to refuse to hear the testimony of an expert witness, and that there must be clear evidence of bias, which, according to the Crown, was not present in this case. Moreover, the Crown submitted that it was in the capacity as an expert that the opinion was given, irrespective of whether this occurred at the audit stage, objection stage, or during appeal.

Analysis

In analyzing whether to admit the evidence by the Crown’s witness, the Tax Court reviewed the leading case on the admission of expert evidence, the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Mohan ([1994] 2 SCR 9), in which the Court set out the criteria for determining whether expert evidence should be admitted, namely: relevance, necessity in assisting the trier of fact, the absence of an exclusionary rule, and a properly qualified expert.

In Mohan, the Supreme Court established that the question of relevancy is a threshold requirement for the admission of expert evidence and a matter to be decided by the judge as a question of law. There must first be logical relevance in order for the evidence to be admitted. The judge must then perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the value of the testimony is worth the costs, in the sense of its impact on the trial process.

The Tax Court also reviewed R. v. Abbey (2009 ONCA 624), in which the Ontario Court of Appeal applied Mohan but also distinguished between the preconditions to admissibility and the judge’s role as a gatekeeper. The Ontario Court of Appeal noted that while the inquiry into the preconditions to admissibility is a rules-based analysis that tends to yield “yes” or “no” answers, the gatekeeper function does not involve the application of bright line rules and frequently requires the exercise of judicial discretion. The gatekeeper function is more subtle and involves weighing the benefits of the probative value of the evidence against the prejudice associated with admitting the evidence.

In HLP, the Tax Court held that it was preferable to disqualify the expert at the qualification stage. The Court based its conclusions on many of the taxpayer’s allegations, including the following:

  • the proposed expert witness was involved with the audit and objection;
  • the proposed expert witness delivered the opinion (the technical review report) that served as the basis for the assessment;
  • following the taxpayer’s representations, the proposed expert witness also wrote an addendum to the technical review report in which she maintained the same position;
  • the proposed expert witness participated in every meeting with the taxpayer as the CRA’s representative;
  • the proposed expert witness confused her role as an RTA with that as an expert witness; and
  • the proposed expert witness reproduced word-for-word paragraphs from her technical review report.

The Tax Court was careful to note that it was not disqualifying the expert on the basis of her employment with the CRA but rather on the basis of her close involvement throughout the audit and objection stages of the file.

The Tax Court allowed the Crown to submit a new expert report.

The Tax Court’s decision in HLP will have a direct impact on future cases in which proposed expert witnesses were involved in the audit and objection processes as CRA employees. Such employees – though they may have the required professional qualifications to testify as an expert witness – cannot be qualified as expert witnesses because they lack the necessary impartiality to testify.

, ,

Tax Court: CRA Employee May Not Testify as Expert

Zhang: BC SC Refuses to Rectify Share Transfer

In Zhang v. Canada (A.G.) (2015 BSCS 1256), the British Columbia Supreme Court refused to grant rectification of a transaction in respect of which the taxpayers had no common intention to avoid capital gains tax on a share transfer.

The taxpayer was resident in British Columbia. He carried on a business of manufacturing and distributing laser equipment. In 2002, the taxpayer incorporated LABest Optronics Co. Ltd. (“LABest”) in China to carry on the business.

In 2003, the taxpayer met with his accountant to discuss his 2002 Canadian tax return. In the course of this discussion, the taxpayer asked about the distribution of income from LABest, and the accountant suggested that income earned in the company could be taxed in China and distributed to a Canadian corporate shareholder as exempt surplus dividends without further Canadian tax being imposed, and then later paid to the taxpayer.

Subsequently, the taxpayer incorporated Beamtech Optronics Co. Ltd. (“Beamtech”), a B.C. company. The accountant suggested that the shares of LABest be transferred to Beamtech. The taxpayer sought and obtained regulatory approval for the share transfer from the Chinese government, and such approval included a transfer value (determined by the government) of $150,000 USD. Beamtech paid $150,000 USD cash to the taxpayer, and no section 85 rollover of the shares was undertaken.

The CRA subsequently reviewed and assessed the transaction on the basis that the fair market value of the LABest shares was $661,164 CDN, resulting in a capital gain of $221,950 for the taxpayer in 2003.

The taxpayer sought rectification of the share transfer to substitute a section 85 rollover of the LABest shares to Beamtech.

The Court stated that the “proper approach” to rectification under B.C. law is as follows:

  1. The focus of the analysis in tax cases is on the intention of the related parties when they entered the transaction. This is because the “mistake” in the written instrument is usually a mistake as to the tax consequences of the transaction. It matters not if the mistake was caused by misinformation from the taxpayer to his advisors, or mistaken advice provided by a professional advisor to the taxpayer.
  2. There is nothing objectionable about taxpayers attempting to avoid tax.
  3. The real question which must be considered is whether the taxpayer is able to establish a specific continuing intention to avoid the particular tax in question. A general intention to avoid taxes is not sufficient. The determination of what constitutes sufficient specificity of intention will depend on the context and the circumstances of each case.
  4. Where rectification is aimed at a wholly distinct kind of tax avoidance, which was not specifically contemplated at the time the written instrument was formed, rectification will not be granted.
  5. A common specific intention is one which existed before the formation of the instrument in question and continued since that time. It must be a “precise” and “clearly-defined object” before rectification will be granted.

In the present case, the Court was concerned that there were significant inconsistencies in the evidence of the taxpayer and his accountant. Further, the evidence established only that the taxpayer intended to implement a corporate structure (i) for the tax-efficient movement of funds from LABest to Beamtech, and (ii) that was acceptable to the Chinese government. The taxpayer had only consulted his accountant about discrete tax issues, but never retained his accountant to provide a comprehensive review of all tax issues that may arise in respect of the transaction. The Court held that the taxpayer had no specific intention to avoid capital gains tax on the share transfer.

The Court dismissed the taxpayer’s application.

The more challenging aspect of Zhang is the Court’s discussion of the requirements for rectification – i.e., whether a specific or general intention to avoid tax must exist for rectification to be granted. The B.C. Court referred to the leading tax rectification case, Juliar v. A.G. (Canada) ((2000), 50 O.R. (3d) 728 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed (File No. 28304)) (Dentons was counsel for the successful taxpayer), and the B.C. cases that have interpreted Juliar (see, for example, McPeake v. Canada (A.G.) (2012 BCSC 132)). The Court stated that, in B.C., “Rectification will not be granted where there is only a general intention to avoid taxes.”

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench reached a similar conclusion in Graymar Equipment (2008) Inc. v A.G. (Canada) (2014 ABQB 154) and Harvest Operations Corp. v. A.G. (Canada) (2015 ABQB 237)).

This may conflict with the reasoning in Juliar and other Ontario cases (see TCR Holding Corporation v. Ontario (2010 ONCA 233) and Fairmont Hotels Inc. v. A.G. (Canada)(2015 ONCA 441) in which the Ontario Court of Appeal has clearly stated that rectification was available where the taxpayers had a general intent to carry out their transactions on a tax-efficient (or tax-neutral) basis and had no expectation as to the specific manner in which the transaction would be carried out.

However, Zhang raises the question as to whether the distinction between specific and general intent is meaningful at all. On any rectification application, a court’s focus will always be on the nature of the mistake, the circumstances of the error, and the evidence of the taxpayer’s intent. Whether their intent is described as “specific” or “general”, taxpayers who are careless or cavalier about the Canadian tax implications of a transaction likely cannot establish that they intended to minimize or avoid taxes and cannot expect to obtain relief from the courts.

As of the time of the writing of this post, the taxpayer had not appealed to the B.C. Court of Appeal.

, ,

Zhang: BC SC Refuses to Rectify Share Transfer

McNally: CRA Does Not Have Unfettered Discretion to Delay Assessment

In McNally v. Canada (National Revenue) (2015 FC 767), the taxpayer brought an application to the Federal Court for an order requiring the Minister to assess his tax return. The Federal Court allowed the taxpayer’s application and ordered the Minister to examine the taxpayer’s tax return and issue a Notice of Assessment within 30 days.

Background

The taxpayer invested funds in a gifting tax shelter in respect of which he claimed a number of deductions.

The taxpayer filed his 2012 federal income tax return in April 2013. Two months later – in June 2013 – he received a letter stating that his return had not been assessed because the CRA was undertaking an audit of the gifting tax shelter program. In July 2013, the taxpayer filed an application for judicial review of the CRA’s decision not to assess his return. Two years later, the taxpayer’s 2012 return still had not been assessed.

Arguments

Under subsection 152(1) of the Income Tax Act, the CRA shall examine a taxpayer’s return of income and assess the tax for that taxation year “with all due dispatch.”

The taxpayer argued that the CRA was deliberately delaying the assessment for the improper purpose of discouraging participation in gifting tax shelters. The court noted that, in the CRA’s view, widely-marketed tax shelters are generally invalid. In this case, the CRA admitted that it chose not to assess the tax returns of participants in the gifting tax shelters in order to discourage participation in such investments, to undertake an audit the tax shelter, and to educate the public about gifting tax shelters.

The CRA admitted that the main reason the taxpayer’s return was not reassessed was to discourage participation in gifting tax shelters. The CRA submitted that this motive did not conflict with its duty under subsection 152(1) of the Act.

Analysis

In allowing the application, Justice Harrington of the Federal Court followed the decision in Ficek v Canada (Attorney General) (2013 FC 502) in which the Court held that the Minister had failed to assess the taxpayer’s return “with all due dispatch.”

In Ficek, a delay in examining the taxpayer’s return arose from a new policy of discouraging certain types of tax shelter investments. In Ficek, the court acknowledged that the CRA has discretion in assessing taxpayers but noted “…the discretion is not unfettered, it must be reasonable and for a proper purpose of ascertaining and fixing the liability of the taxpayer” (para. 21). Importantly, the Court held that there should be some certainty to the taxpayer’s financial affairs (para. 34).

In McNally, Justice Harrington followed this reasoning. He held that the phrase “with all due dispatch” does not imply a specific time period before which the Minister must make an assessment. However, he found that while the Minister has discretion, it is not unfettered. The determination of whether the Minister has examined a taxpayer’s return “with all due dispatch” is a question of fact.

The Federal Court ultimately determined that the Minister had failed to assess the taxpayer’s tax return “with all due dispatch.”  The court held:

[41] … Although the Minister is responsible for administrating the Income Tax Act, ultimately it falls upon the courts to decide whether a claimed deduction is valid or not. It is plain and obvious that Mr. McNally’s rights have been trampled upon for extraneous purposes.

[42] The Minister owes Mr. McNally a statutory duty to examine his return “with all due dispatch.” There may well be circumstances in which it will take some time to reach a conclusion with respect to a given return. It may well be appropriate to await the audit of third parties. However this is not one of those cases.

[43] The CRA is entitled to express concerns with respect to certain shelters and to warn that such shelters will be audited. In Mr. McNally’s case, however, the resulting delay is capricious and cannot be allowed to stand. Even assuming these secondary purposes to be valid, they are overwhelmed by the primary main purpose and cannot save the day.

Interestingly, McNally goes a step further than the Court in Ficek, in which the Court had simply declared that the CRA had failed to assess with all due dispatch. McNally is a good example of the Federal Court exercising its judicial review authority to compel the CRA to carry out its statutory duty. This does not assure the taxpayer that he is entitled to his charitable donation claims, but at least he will be able to commence a challenge of the disallowance of the claims.

While the McNally decision does not go so far as to tell us what “with all due dispatch” means, the decision is the second important reminder that the CRA’s discretion in assessing taxpayers, while broad, is not unfettered.

, ,

McNally: CRA Does Not Have Unfettered Discretion to Delay Assessment

Mac’s: Quebec CA Affirms Denial of Rectification

In Mac’s Convenience Stores Inc. v. Canada (2015 QCCA 837), the Quebec Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court decision (2012 QCCS 2745) denying rectification of corporate resolutions that had declared a dividend that unintentionally put the company offside the “thin-cap” rules in subsections 18(4)-(8) of the Income Tax Act.

Facts

Mac’s, an Ontario corporation, was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Couche-Tard Inc. (“CTI”). In April 2005, Mac’s borrowed $185 million from Sidel Corporation, a related Delaware corporation.

In April 2006, Mac’s participated in several transactions with various related entities, including the declaration of a $136 million dividend on the common shares held by CTI. A similar series of transactions had been undertaken in 2001. However, in 2006, Mac’s professional advisors failed or forgot to take proper account of the $185 million owed by Mac’s to Sidel.

While the $136 million dividend itself was generally without tax consequences, the dividend had the effect of putting Mac’s offside the (then) 2:1 ratio in the “thin-cap” rules in the Income Tax Act. This resulted in the reduction of deductible interest paid by Mac’s to Sidel in the years following the dividend payment (i.e., 2006, 2007 and 2008).

Rectification

After Mac’s was reassessed by the CRA to disallow the interest deduction, Mac’s sought rectification of the corporate resolution declaring the dividend, and additionally sought to substitute a reduction of its stated capital and the distribution of cash to CTI. This would have had the same effect of paying an amount to CTI while maintaining the proper ratio for interest deductibility.

The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the application on the basis that the Mac’s directors never had any specific discussions regarding the deductibility of interest on the Sidel loan after the payment of the dividend. The various steps in the 2006 transactions reflected the intentions of the parties, and thus there was no divergence between the parties agreement and the documents carrying out the transactions.

Appeal

The taxpayer appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal. The Court described the taxpayer’s position as not invoking any error in the lower court judgment but simply alleging that, if the taxpayer’s advisors had made a mistake, then the lower court decision must be reversed on the basis of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Quebec v. Services Environnementaux AES Inc. (2013 SCC 65) (“AES“) (see our previous post on AES here).

The Court of Appeal stated that it understood the Supreme Court’s decision in AES to stand for the proposition that parties who undertake legitimate corporate transactions for the purpose of avoiding, deferring or minimizing tax and who commit an error in carrying out such transactions may correct the error(s) in order to achieve the tax results as intended and agreed upon. The Court of Appeal cautioned that AES does not sanction retroactive tax planning.

In the present case, the Court of Appeal held there was no common intention regarding the “thin-cap” implications of the dividend payment, and thus there was no agreement that should be given effect by the courts.

The Court of Appeal held there was no error by the lower court and dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal.

, ,

Mac’s: Quebec CA Affirms Denial of Rectification

Baytex: ABQB Grants Rectification

In Baytex Energy Ltd. et  al. v. The Queen (2015 ABQB 278), the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench considered whether rectification and/or rescission were available to address mistakes that could result in the taxpayer being taxed on additional resource income of $135 million for 2003-2006 and $528 million for 2007-2010.

The Court determined that the requirements for rectification had been satisfied and thus granted the rectification of certain documents to accord with the parties’ original intention.

Facts

Baytex Energy Trust (the “Trust”) was a publicly-traded mutual fund trust (the Trust later converted to Baytex Energy Corp. (“BEC”), a publicly-traded dividend-paying corporation). The Trust wholly-owned Baytex Energy Ltd. (“BEL”), which owned and operated oil and gas properties prior to transferring the properties to Baytex Energy Partnership on January 1, 2010.

The Baytex companies were subject to the pre-2007 oil and gas royalty regime in the Income Tax Act, which required certain additional resource income for an oil and gas producer (referred to in the judgment as “Phantom Income”) and denied certain deductions for provincial Crown royalties and taxes. A 25% resource allowance was available to the producer. The Phantom Income could be transferred by the producer to another party, and a non-deductible and off-setting reimbursement would be made back to the producer. In this case, BEL and the Trust agreed that BEL would transfer 99% of its income and cash flow to the Trust.

In the Budget of February 18, 2003, the federal government announced the phase-out of the oil and gas royalty regime and the elimination of the regime as of January 1, 2007.

Parties’ Agreements

BEL and the Trust executed a Net Profits Interest Agreement (the “Original Agreement”) in September 2003 for the transfer of income and the off-setting reimbursement. However, the written terms of the Original Agreement failed to address the transfer of Phantom Income. A subsequent agreement (the “Collateral Agreement”) – not all of the terms of which were reduced to writing – addressed the transfer of Phantom Income.

The parties intended that the transfer and reimbursement would cease effective January 1, 2007 because of the elimination of the oil and gas royalty regime in the Income Tax Act.

However, from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2010, the parties continued the practice of transferring and reimbursing the Phantom Income. When this error was initially discovered in 2008, the Baytex companies’ tax professionals advised that the Original Agreement should be amended to provide for the reimbursement beyond 2006 to be consistent with the practice of the parties. The Baytex companies were told this amendment would have no adverse tax consequences. Based on this advice, the parties entered into an Amended Agreement.

The CRA reviewed the Baytex companies’ arrangements and concluded that an additional $135 million was taxable income to BEL for 2003-2006, and that the Trust earned an additional $528 million of taxable income for 2007-2010.

Rectification/Rescission

The Baytex companies sought rectification of the agreements. The CRA did not oppose the rectification of the agreements for the pre-2007 period, but did oppose the rectification for the post-2006 period on the basis that the Baytex companies had intentionally amended the Original Agreement, based on professional advice, to reflect the practice of transfer and reimbursement, and thus the parties mistaken assumption about the tax consequences would not meet the test for rectification. The taxpayers argued that the evidence (which consisted of two affidavits of BEC’s Chief Financial Officer) established that the parties always intended to transfer and reimburse the Phantom Income and that no transfers would occur after January 1, 2007.

The Court considered the authorities on rectification and concluded that the test for granting rectification had been met. The uncontroverted evidence was that the parties’ common intention was to transfer BEL’s income to the Trust, and that this practice would cease as of January 1, 2007. The Original Agreement and the Amended Agreement were inconsistent with this common intention. The precise form of the corrected agreement was not in dispute. And there were no other considerations that would limit/prevent the availability of rectification. Accordingly, the Court granted the rectification.

While this determination was sufficient to dispose of the application, the Court did go on to consider whether, if the Court was wrong on rectification, rescission was available to the parties. The Court held that the Amended Agreement triggered an unintended tax consequence that constituted a fundamental mistake that went to the root of the contract. The Court concluded that rescission was available to rescind the Amended Agreement, which would restore the parties to their Original Agreement, which the Crown had agreed should be rectified.

, ,

Baytex: ABQB Grants Rectification

Highlights from the Toronto Centre CRA & Professionals Group Breakfast Seminar – February 19, 2015

On February 19, 2015, at the Toronto Centre CRA & Professionals Group Breakfast Seminar CRA representatives provided an update on two topics: 1) online CRA e-services, and 2) Regulation 102 and Regulation 105 waivers for non-residents.

An Overview of E-Services for Tax Professionals and Businesses

Maxime Leger and Marc Boisseau, Senior Programs Officers at the Assessment and Benefit Services Branch, provided updates regarding CRA e-services under the My Account, My Business Account and Represent a Client portals. In general, these online portals allow taxpayers, or designated representatives, to submit documents, view and manage various tax accounts online.

My Account

  • Two levels are now required to login and access My Account. In level 1, the taxpayer is required provide personal information (social insurance number, date of birth, postal code, amounts entered on income tax and benefit return) to create a user ID and password. In level 2, the taxpayer receives the CRA security code.
  • After obtaining online access to My Account, Taxpayers can view Notice of Assessment and the status of tax returns. If the taxpayer registers to manage online mail, the CRA will no longer send paper copies. The taxpayer will receive email notifications to check My Account.
  • Taxpayers can register for online mail through NETFILE or EFILE software, by filing a T1 return, online using My Account service or by speaking with an agent.
  • Canadian resident individuals, corporations, and certain partnerships and trusts that, at any time during the year, own certain foreign property costing more than $100,000 are required to file Form T1135 Foreign Income Verification Statement. As of February 9, 2015, individual taxpayers are able to file this form electronically for the 2014 tax year. In the future, electronic filing will be extended to corporations and partnerships.

My Business Account

  • My Business Account has been expanded to allow taxpayers to file returns, Notices of Objection and refunds in regards to excise duties, excise taxes, air travelers security charges and softwood lumber products export charges.
  • This account also permits additional GST/HST elections i.e. GST20-1 Notice of Revocation of an Election for GST/HST Reporting Period by a Listed Financial Institution and RC7220 Election for GST/HST and QST Reporting Period for a Selected Listed Financial Institution
  • Updated options such as payment searches for payments made but not credited to the account and requests to transfer misallocated credits have been added to the Payroll Accounts.
  • Taxpayers can now authorize the CRA to withdraw pre-authorized debits from bank accounts. Taxpayers and designated representatives may manage direct deposits directly through My Business Account.

Represent a Client

  • The CRA noted that business authorization requests can be submitted online and will be reviewed and processed within five business days.
  • A non-resident representative living in the U.S. who wants to access the Represent a Client portal can obtain a non-resident representative number (NRRN) by completing the RC391 Application for a CRA NRRN.
  • Additional changes are expected in April 2015 to permit representatives to register new businesses and add program accounts on behalf of taxpayers.
  • The Tax Data Delivery Service allows authorized representatives to electronically receive information to help client income tax and benefit returns. It delivers tax information including T4 slips (i.e., T4A, T4E, T4A(OAS), T4A(P)), Home Buyers’ Plan, tuition carryover amounts.
  • To use this service, representatives must be a registered electronic filer, registered in Represent a Client, use an EFILE certified product and have a valid Form T1030 Authorizing or Cancelling a Representative.

Mobile Apps

  • In addition to the updated services provided in the online portals, the CRA also introduced new mobile apps.
  • In August 2014, the CRA Business Tax Reminder was released for small and medium sized enterprises with annual revenues of $20 million or less and less than 500 employees. This app allows taxpayers to create reminders and alerts for key dates related to instalment payments, returns, and remittances. See our post here.
  • More recently, on February 9, 2015, the CRA released MyCRA. This new app allows individual taxpayers to view Notices of Assessment, tax return status, and RRSP and TFSA contribution room. In the future it will permit taxpayers to update contact information and enroll for direct deposit.

Non-Resident Taxation in Canada – Regulation 102/105

Claudio DiRienzo, Policy and Technical Advisor at the Specialty Audit Division Compliance Programs Branch, provided an update on issues pertaining to Regulations 102 and 105. In general, these regulations require payors of non-residents rendering services in Canada to withhold and remit tax on the payments subject to treaty-based waivers.

Reduce Red Tape

  • The CRA acknowledged current frustrations among taxpayers and representatives with the cumbersome Regulation 105 and 102 processes and noted that the CRA continues to consult with stakeholders and tax professionals to reduce red tape. However, the CRA emphasized that certain processes were required to comply with existing legislation. The CRA suggested that amendments be made to the current legislation to help streamline the waiver process.
  • Centres of Expertise have been established for the waivers to ensure consistency among waiver requests. To shorten processing times, the CRA advised that comprehensive information be provided and a Business Number (BN) or Individual Tax Number (ITN) be applied for in advance.
  • CRA Document No. IC 75-6R2 states that approximately 30 days are required to review waiver applications. However, the CRA noted in reality the wait time varies on inventory and workload.

R102J and R102R Waivers

  • The CRA commented on the difference between R102J and R102R waivers. Both are treaty-based waivers used by non-residents to reduce the amount of withholding. The R102J is a joint employer and employee waiver and applies only to amounts less than $5,000 if the other country has a tax treaty with Canada or amounts less than $10,000 if the other country is the US. The waiver is effective for a year. To accommodate employers, the waiver is retroactive for 60 days prior to the date granted and an ITN or SIN can be provided at the end of the year.
  • In contrast, the R102R does not have the 60-day retroactive concession and requires a SIN or ITN at the time the waiver is granted.

Short Waivers Granted

  • The CRA acknowledged concerns that Regulation 102R waivers were being issued for short time periods (i.e., six months). As a result, taxpayers were required to reapply for waivers for the remainder of the taxation year. The CRA explained that this arose out of concerns that the employee would constitute a permanent establishment of the employer under Article XV, the Dependent Personal Services provision of the Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty.
  • The CRA representatives responsible for processing waivers do not make determinations in regards to a permanent establishment at the time of the waiver. This determination is made at the time of filing.
  • The CRA noted that it has now revised its position. If the applicant provides the approximate number of days he or she will be in Canada and approximate remuneration amounts, the waiver applies for a full calendar year.

Secondments

  • The CRA also commented on the use of secondment arrangements to manage Regulation 102 and 105 issues. A secondment is the temporary assignment of loan of an employee between two entities. The CRA noted that whether withholding is required under a secondment arrangement is a question of fact. In order to waive withholding a genuine employer-employee relationship must exist.
  • No Regulation 105 withholding is required for reasonable reimbursements under a secondment. CRA Document No. IC 75-6R2, which provides guidelines on secondment arrangements, states that administrative overhead of $250 per month per employee constitutes a reasonable reimbursement.

Updates in Case Law and Administrative Policy

  • The CRA noted that it accepts the Weyerhaeuser Company Limited v. The Queen (2007 TCC 65) decision, which generally held that not all payments to non-residents are subject to withholding tax. However, the CRA noted that they would only apply Regulation 105 consistently with this decision if the taxpayer’s information is documented at the time the payment is made.
  • The CRA is currently in the process of developing a set of guidelines and policy directions for Regulation 102 and Regulation 105 and updating CRA Document No. IC 75-6R2. An online portal for waivers is expected to be launched in 2016.

, ,

Highlights from the Toronto Centre CRA & Professionals Group Breakfast Seminar – February 19, 2015

Maddin: Failure to Inquire Leaves Director Liable

In Maddin v. The Queen (2014 TCC 277), the taxpayer was a director of a corporation in the marble and granite industry (the “Corporation”) which failed to remit nearly $300,000 of source deductions related to salaries, wages and other remuneration paid to employees. The sole issue before the Tax Court was whether the taxpayer could make out a due diligence defence under subsection 227.1(3) of the Income Tax Act (Canada).

For earlier blog posts on directors’ liability see our blog posts here and here.

The evidence established that the taxpayer intended to play a limited advisory role in the Corporation. Mr. Barker, another director, was in charge of managing the daily operations of the Corporation. However, the Tax Court also noted the following additional facts:

  • The taxpayer was in the office 2-3 days a week;
  • The taxpayer was familiar with the Corporation’s business structure, its banking operations and the accounting systems;
  • The taxpayer executed various letters on behalf of the Corporation;
  • The taxpayer had a close relationship with the initial bookkeeper and communicated with her generally throughout the period at issue;
  • When a new bookkeeper (the mother of another director) was hired, the taxpayer was aware that she did not necessarily understand the bookkeeping systems; and
  • The taxpayer knew of the Corporation’s financial difficulties.

Ultimately, the Tax Court held that these factual circumstances should have prompted Mr. Maddin to inquire into the financial health of the Corporation. Mr. Maddin did not exercise the appropriate standard of care, diligence and skill required of a director to avoid being held personally liable for the unremitted source deductions.

This case is another reminder that the Courts will, in general, hold directors to a relatively high standard of conduct. In order to successfully argue a due diligence defence, directors involved in the business must take active steps to inquire into the financial state of affairs and communicate regularly with staff to obtain reports that source deductions are being remitted in a timely manner.

, , ,

Maddin: Failure to Inquire Leaves Director Liable