Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

Canadian Tax Litigation

Keeping an eye on Canadian tax litigation developments.

open menu close menu

Canadian Tax Litigation

  • Home
  • About us

Tax Court Upholds Penalties Imposed for False Statements

By Larry Nevsky
March 19, 2014
  • Fairness
  • Penalties and Interest
  • Tax Court
  • Tax Court of Canada
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

In Morton v. The Queen (2014 TCC 72), the Tax Court of Canada upheld penalties imposed by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the “Act””) despite novel arguments by the taxpayer to the contrary.

In this case, the taxpayer originally filed his income tax returns for the relevant years and paid taxes on the reported income.  After the normal reassessment periods expired, utilizing the taxpayer “fairness” provisions in subsection 152(4.2) of the Act, the taxpayer filed T1 Adjustment Requests containing false information in the form of additional income and expenses that would place the taxpayer in a tax loss position in each year. If the Minister had accepted the adjustments, the taxpayer would have received refunds in excess of $202,000.

However, the taxpayer’s plan did not work out as expected. The Minister not only denied the T1 Adjustment Requests, but also levied penalties in excess of $75,000 pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the Act.  These penalties were the subject of the appeal to the Tax Court.

During testimony, the taxpayer admitted to supplying false information in the T1 Adjustment Requests intentionally, knowingly and without reliance on another person. In defense of his actions the taxpayer claimed that he was under stress due to financial difficulties, a marriage breakdown and loss of access to his business books and records. At trial, the Tax Court found as a matter of fact that the misrepresentations were made fraudulently and rejected the taxpayer’s defense since no documentary evidence could be supplied in respect of the alleged stress.

The remainder of Justice Bocock’s decision contained a thorough analysis of the provisions of subsection 152(4.2) of the Act in the context of levying a penalty pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the Act. Justice Bocock provided the following insights:

  • Even where information is supplied to the Minister outside of the context of filing a return for a particular taxation year, if the taxpayer makes fraudulent misrepresentations sufficient to assess under subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i) of the Act, for instance in requesting that the Minister reopen the taxation year under subsection 152(4.2) of the Act, the Minister may assess penalties for a statute barred year.
  • The penalty provisions in subsection 163(2) of the Act apply even in the absence of the Minister issuing a refund or reassessment that relies upon the incorrect information. The Tax Court found it would be absurd to require the Minister to rely on the fraudulent misrepresentations before levying a penalty; and
  • The meaning of the words “return”, “form”, “certificate”, “statement” and “answer” in subsection 163(2) of the Act should be defined broadly to include documents such as the T1 Adjustment Request. Limiting the application of penalties to prescribed returns and forms ignores the plain text, context and purpose of the Act and would lead to illogical results.

It should come as no surprise that the Tax Court upheld the penalties. Nevertheless, the decision provides an enjoyable and thought provoking analysis of the provisions contained in subsections 152(4.2) and 163(2) of the Act.

Canada Revenue Agency, Income Tax Act, penalties
Larry Nevsky

About Larry Nevsky

Larry Nevsky is a partner in Dentons’ national Tax group in Toronto, where he focuses on all aspects of income tax and corporate tax planning. With his comprehensive background as both a lawyer and a chartered professional accountant, Larry operates a thriving practice advising domestic and international clients on a wide range of tax-related matters, including mergers and acquisitions, corporate reorganizations, corporate finance, business structuring, inbound and outbound expansion, cross-border transactions and tax dispute resolution.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Administration and Enforcement
  • Directors' liability
  • Employees
  • Penalties and Interest

Roitelman: Fraud and the Due Diligence Defence

By Kenda Shaheen
  • Administration and Enforcement
  • Advocacy
  • Appeals
  • Assessments
  • Canada Revenue Agency
  • Dispute Resolution
  • Experts
  • Tax Court of Canada

Tax Court: CRA Employee May Not Testify as Expert

By Jacob Yau
  • Federal Court of Appeal
  • Tax Court of Canada
  • Tax Court Procedure

Federal Court of Appeal clarifies that corporations must be represented by lawyers in General Procedure proceedings before the Tax Court of Canada

By Paige Donnelly and Noah Walters (Articling Student)

About Dentons

Dentons is the world’s largest law firm, delivering quality and value to clients around the globe. Dentons is a leader on the Acritas Global Elite Brand Index, a BTI Client Service 30 Award winner and recognized by prominent business and legal publications for its innovations in client service, including founding Nextlaw Labs and the Nextlaw Global Referral Network. Dentons’ polycentric approach and world-class talent challenge the status quo to advance client interests in the communities in which we live and work. www.dentons.com.

Twitter

Categories

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

COVID-19 Global Tax Tracker
Dentons logo

© 2021 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site