The HST Blog : Canada Harmonized Sales Tax Lawyer Cyndee Todgham Cherniak for Assessments, PST & RST Issues in Ontario, British Columbia & Quebec

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) identifies categories of goods for post-release targeted verifications on an annual basis.  This list is important for importers of goods for customs purposes and also GST purposes.  If the valuation is too low, the CBSA will increase the value for customs duties purposes , which results in an increase in value for GST purposes.  Additional GST will be calculated and assessed and interest on that GST debt from the date of importation.

Post-release verifications occur after goods are released by the CBSA and are intended to verify the information provided by businesses when goods are reported for customs purposes (compliance with Canada's customs laws).  There are three main types of post-release verifications.

A) Random Post-Release Verifications: These verifications are random. The CBSA randomly selects importers from their records and conducts an verification to measure compliance with Canada's customs laws and revenue seepage. In other words, the importer's number just came up.

B) Targeted Post-Release Verifications: These verifications are not random. The importer is selected due information provided to the CBSA concerning non-compliance with Canada's customs laws.

C) Post-Release Verifications Based on National Priorities: These verifications occur as a result of the CBSA setting national priorities that are determined through a risk-based assessment and evergreen process. The CBSA picks H.S. tariff codes on an annual basis to target for verifications and semi-randomly picks importers of those goods for a targeted verification. Often the importers with significant volumes of the goods are selected for verification and importers who have not been audited recently. The CBSA is asking the question whether the importing community is making mistakes with respect to a particular type of goods.

The CBSA's Post-Release Verification list for 2011 are:

This does not mean that all importers who import the goods on the 2011 hit list will be audited. It does mean that some importers of the good on the list will be audited in 2011/2012. Importers of the goods on the list should conduct their own internal verifications and determine whether they are importing goods in compliance with previously issued ruling letters, case law, CBSA policy and other statements of the law. If an importer identifies errors prior to being contacted by the CBSA for a verification, that importer may be permitted to make a voluntary disclosure of its non-compliance and the CBSA may waive the penalties that would have been payable if the CBSA discovered the non-compliance during a verification.

For more information, please contact Cyndee Todgham Cherniak at 416-760-8999.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the recent Tax Court of Canada decision in Malik v. The Queen, Judge Hershfield was clearly frustrated by the record-keeping (or lack thereof) of Mr. Malik, a resident of Canada of Pakistani origin.  Judge Hershfield's written reasons also demonstrate that the testimony of the Appellant lacked credibility.  The decision is an interesting read from the perspective of watching a judge struggle to be fair when he knew that the taxpayer was spinning facts.

There are many lessons to be taken from this decision.  Judge Hershfield wrote a number of paragraphs dealing with record-keeping in the Canadian tax system.  Other taxpayers can benefit from reading the lessons.  Two of my favorite passages are:

[18] ...The Canadian tax system is based on a self-reporting system. This applies to new Canadians, who venture into new business activities in Canada, as much as it applies to seasoned business persons. The lack of proper accounting records and supporting documents, in this case, has not only made it impossible to determine with any degree of certainty the actual business income of the Appellant but it is further blurred by an organizational structure emanating in Pakistan. Such arrangements must be documented in such a way so as to identify with certainty the legal nature of the relationships of the parties as well as their income entitlements so as to permit consistent and legally effective income and expense allocations amongst the various jurisdictions in which these enterprises operate.

...

[31] One last comment on the reporting obligations and the bank deposit methodology used in this case lest the Appellant has not learned something in the course of these assessments and the prosecution of his appeals. Two things should be obvious from this Judgment. One is that both the Appellant’s domestic and foreign business arrangements need to be organized and structured, in a legal manner, with appropriate documentation in place to support the filing position arising from that legal structure. Secondly, a bookkeeper or accountant is going to sooner or later have to show the Appellant that business bank accounts need be segregated to account for all business transactions and that each and every bank entry requires a support ledger that indicates the nature of the entry and the background to it. Behind that ledger are the physical documents that support or evidence the explanation of the entry. Without the latter supporting documentation, ledgers will become questionable and will lose their value in supporting a particular treatment in respect of bank statement entries.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 25, 2011, British Columbia Minister of Finance Falcon announced that the B.C. government will reduce the PVAT rate (B.C. HST) from the current rate of 7% to 6% (July 2012) to 5% (on July 1, 2014).  I am disappointed because Premier Clark was promising a bold announcement.  I was hoping for a list of point of sale exemptions or something more innovative.  Too much hype and not really a fresh approach.

The HST/PVAT rate cannot be reduced before the two year anniversary date by contract with the Government of Canada.  In the Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement, British Columbia agreed that it would not reduce the HST/PVAT rate for 2 years.  As a result, the first stage of the reductions cannot happen sooner.

Currently, the combined GST/HST rate in Ontario is 13%, in Nova Scotia is 15%, in New Brunswick and Newfoundland/Labrador is 13% and in British Columbia is 12%.  Since Alberta does not have a provincial sales tax, some like to argue that the GST/HST rate in Alberta is 5% (which technically in wrong).  So, it would be technically correct to say that British Columbia would have the lowest GST/HST rate (still) if the changes are implemented.

Here is the "catch", the announcement is that rate will be reduced if the voters in British Columbia vote to keep the HST in the June/July referendum.  The ballots for the HST referendum will be mailed out to B.C. voters on June 13. All ballots must be received by July 22 to be counted.  What they do not say is that the HST/PVAT rate will be reduced to 0% if the referendum is successful (unless Premier Clark goes back on Campbell's promise).

The gamblers in British Columbia need to ask whether they should vote "no" in the referendum against keeping the HST (PVAT).  If they are successful, the rate goes to 0% and they go back to the 5% GST and a retail sales tax.  Or, the no referendum win would allow British Columbia to negotiate a better HST deal with the Government of Canada.  Alternatively, the voters could vote "yes" in favour of keeping the HST and accept limited & staged reductions in the PVAT rate.

Businesses may also have something to say about today's announcement.  The staged reductions require more effort than merely a change to the sales registers and computers.  The positive news for business is that they will have approximately a year to undertake the reductions in their business systems.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The answer is contained in the recent Tax Court of Canada interim decision in Richard A. Kanan Corporation v. The Queen.  In this case, a tricky Canada Revenue Agency auditor would not allow deductions taken by a dentist for legal expenses because the invoices were stated to be "for services rendered" and the auditor was not allowed to see the entire file.  Judge Campbell tries to strike a balance in her decision between the divergent interests.  This case is a MUST READ for all lawyers who provide advice to businesses (especially all tax lawyers).

Judge Campbell considered two questions:

1) Can the Appellant meet its onus without disclosing privileged information?

2) If the Appellant relies on privileged information to meet its onus, will an implied waiver be found over its entire legal file?

The short answer is that the Appellant MUST provide information about the legal services in order to justify the deduction.  However, auditors CANNOT go on fishing expeditions through a lawyer's files.

With respect to the first question, Judge Campbell concluded succinctly in the end of the interim decision:

"When a taxpayer deducts an expense from his or her income, he or she may be called upon to justify that deduction – to convince the Minister, or failing that, the Court, that it is a properly deductible expense. Where the expense is a lawyer’s fee, the proof that is required will often be covered by solicitor-client privilege. While these Interim Reasons are not intended to provide the CRA with a licence to access privileged information, it is clear that a taxpayer who presents a claim for deductions in a return must also accept that at least some disclosure will be necessary to properly dispose of that claim."
 

With respect to the second question, Judge Campbell concluded succinctly at the end of the interim decision:

"...a taxpayer should not be forced to reveal the specifics of its legal advice, or to turn over the lawyer’s entire file. In addition to limited disclosure, the lawyer or the Court may edit documents to remove non-essential material, and the Court may impose conditions to ensure the confidentiality of the information. Further, taxpayers must be allowed to provide the proof that is required without the risk that they will be found to have waived the privilege entirely."
 

Judge Campbell has clearly recognized in her decision the importance of solicitor-client privilege.  She writes:

"To find otherwise would create an unreasonable and unacceptable rule. Taxpayers would effectively have the choice of foregoing a proper deduction for legal expenses or revealing to CRA the entirety of their lawyer’s files. Such a rule would be inconsistent with the status accorded to solicitor-client privilege as a substantive and fundamental civil right, and a privilege which must be as close to absolute as possible."

While the decision says nothing about non-lawyer consultants and accountants who provide tax advice to taxpayers, it is worth noting that the above decision would not cover such advisors.  With respect to non-lawyer advisors, the Canada Revenue Agency may ask for the entire file (with the exception of solicitor-client work product if the non-lawyer hired a lawyer in connection with the advice) to review regarding the deductibility of an expense.

While the decision does not relate to input tax credits for GST/HST purposes, the principles would likely be applied in a similar manner. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It is important for small business owners to keep good records.  The recent decision by Judge Woods of the Tax Court of Canada in Antwi v. The Queen makes the point very well.  It is best to provide a large excerpt of this short case:

[3]  While documentary evidence is not always necessary to prove a taxpayer’s case, here it was crucial as the Appellant herself was unable to explain how the sole proprietorship had paid for the supplies which she admitted had been purchased. The best she could do was to offer various hypothetical explanations: perhaps she had paid for some of the supplies out of her employment income (even though the value of the supplies was more than double her entire income for the year); other amounts could have been paid by her two brothers either in cash or by credit card (but no evidence of their having done so was presented); sometimes, friends and relatives helped out with payments (but no details of who they were or what amounts they might have contributed).

[4] Not surprisingly, some seven years after the fact the Appellant could not remember specifically what amounts were paid by whom for what. And not having retained the source documents or kept records of the transactions in issue, she had no way of reconstructing the sole proprietorship’s business activities in 2004 and 2005. A further complication lay in the fact that while it was not reported to the tax authorities as such, the sole proprietorship was apparently intended to be the Appellant’s mother’s business; the Appellant and her two brothers provided the funds for its start-up and operation; their mother, the hands-on work in the store. According to the Appellant, because her mother had difficulty with English and had no previous retail experience, she made many errors entering sales into the cash register; for example, she might enter too many zeros so that a sale that was actually for $10.00 would appear as $1,000. Because the Appellant was busy with her own employment, she was not able to be at the store to assist her mother or to correct the mistakes that inevitably occurred. Thus, to the extent that any records did exist, it is unlikely they were very reliable. In any event, although the Appellant admitted that the invoices, cash register tapes and banking statements she had provided to the auditor and Appeals Officer had been returned to her, she was unable to say, as of the date of this hearing, where those documents might currently be found. Finally, in response to her agent’s question in direct examination as to whether inventory had ever been counted for the business, the Appellant answered in the negative.

[5] I agree with counsel for the Respondent that the Appellant’s situation falls squarely within the circumstances described by Bowman, CJ in 620247 Ontario Ltd. v. Canada 1995 CarswellNat 27 at paragraphs 8 and 12:

8.a. The assessment is based upon the assumption that the bank deposits are about as accurate an indication of the sales as one is likely to get, -given that the appellant kept no books and its only record of sales was the sales slips, which were incomplete and essentially in an unsatisfactory state. It may be a fair surmise that some of the bank deposits came from sources other than sales but the evidence simply does not establish how much. In a case of this type, which involves an attempt by the Department of National Revenue to make a detailed reconstruction of the taxpayer's business, it is incumbent upon the taxpayer who challenges the accuracy of the Department's conclusions to do so with a reasonable degree of specificity. That was not done here. A bald assertion that the sales could not have been that high, or that some unspecified portion of the bank deposits came from other sources is insufficient. I am left with the vague suspicion that the chances are that the sales figures computed by the Minister may be somewhat high, but within a range of indeterminate magnitude. This is simply not good enough to justify the allowing of the appeal. If I sent the matter back for reconsideration and reassessment the same evidentiary impasse would result. I must therefore conclude that the appellant has failed to meet the onus of showing that the assessment is wrong.

…

12 Precisely the same problem arises [with the challenge to the Minister’s GST assessment]. There may well be errors in the Minister's calculations, but given the unsatisfactory state of the appellant's records it is difficult to see how he could have made a different determination and while I may not be bound to apply the same rather rigid criteria evidently demanded by the Minister there is no evidence upon which I can arrive at a different figure.

[6] The former Chief Justice ultimately concluded that given the lack of books and records, the auditor acted on the best evidence he could find. The sole distinction between the case above and the Appellant’s situation is that I am unable to find any fault with the assessing officials. A review of the schedules in the Replies and Tab 7 of the Respondent’s Book of Documents[1] suggests that the officials thoroughly reviewed whatever documentation was made available to them and where supported, allowed adjustments in the Appellant’s favour. After that point, however, the same sort of evidentiary deficiencies that hindered the Appellant’s case at the hearing precluded any further revisions to the reassessments.

[7] In short, there is simply is not enough evidence before me to justify interfering with the Minister’s reassessments. In reaching this conclusion, I have some sympathy for the Appellant who seems to have put her faith in advisors who have not served her particularly well. On the other hand, the Appellant struck me as an intelligent young woman quite capable of foreseeing the risks of engaging in a business for two years without maintaining at least basic records with some accuracy and regularity.

The morale of this case is that the organized taxpayer has information that can be provided to the judge.  The judge needs evidence to overturn the decision of the Canada Revenue Agency.  Judges want to be fair.  Help judges help you.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When I say "taxable", I am talking about goods and services tax (GST) and harmonized sales tax (HST).  I am not talking about income tax in this blog post when I say "taxable".

The recent Tax Court of Canada decision in Craigmyle v. M.N.R. reminds us that planning is required for a business to claim that a person who is paid by the business is an independent service provider and not an employee (or vice versa).  Generally speaking, in the context of GST/HST, it is better that an individual is an employee because labour of employees is not subject to GST/HST.  An employer does not pay GST/HST to the employee and the employee does not need to register for GST/HST purposes.  During an audit, the assessment exposure/risk does not include the salary accounts in the general ledger.

That being said, a business may decide to look at other legal requirements when deciding how to structure the business (the GST/HST does not operate in a vacuum).  Since an employer has Canada pension plan and employment insurance payment obligations and income tax withholding obligations in regards to employees, the business may choose to retain the services of independent service providers and pay GST/HST on invoices submitted by the independent service providers for their services (if they are registered for GST/HST purposes).  The business must make a business decision.

If the business hires independent service providers, it should to ensure that independent service providers who make taxable sales in excess of $30,000 (the small supplier threshold) register for GST/HST purposes and charge GST/HST.  The business will have to be mindful of its own GST/HST assessment exposure/risk as a purchaser for non-payment of GST/HST.

The Craigmyle case deals with Canada pension plan and employment insurance.  In this case, the Canada Revenue Agency determined that the individual was an employee and the Tax Court of Canada disagreed --- the individual was an independent contractor.

The Tax Court of Canada examined what the Courts have held to constitute a contract of service. Based on Wiebe Door Services Ltd. v M.N.R. (F.C.A.) [Wiebe Door], and accepted and expanded by subsequent cases, the following test is applied focusing on the total relationship of the parties with the analysis centered around four elements:

(a) degree of control and supervision;

(b) ownership of tools;

(c) chance of profit; and 

(d) risk of loss.

Each situation has unique facts because the issue is the characterization of a relationship. Each case must be decided on a case-by-case basis. 

Business that are engaged in exempt activities for GST/HST purposes are less likely to structure the business around independent service providers because the GST/HST cost is generally unrecoverable (in Ontario that would be 13% on the service provider's fees).  Businesses that are engaged in zero-rated or taxable activities can recover the GST/HST paid to independent service providers.  The focus would be on the assessment risk in the event that mistakes are made or the Canada Revenue Agency has a different opinion concerning the characterization of the expense.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The May 3, 2011 Tax Court of Canada decision in Snively v. The Queen should serve as a helpful reminder to directors of corporations that they may still be considered to be a director of a corporation for GST/HST assessment purposes even after they have resigned as a director.

The general rule for director's liability is contained in subsection 323(1) of the Excise Tax Act:

If a corporation fails to remit an amount of net tax as required under subsection 228(2) or (2.3) or to pay an amount as required under section 230.1 that was paid to, or was applied to the liability of, the corporation as a net tax refund, the directors of the corporation at the time the corporation was required to remit or pay, as the case may be, the amount are jointly and severally, or solitarily, liable, together with the corporation, to pay the amount and any interest on, or penalties relating to, the amount.

An exception to the general rule is set out in subsection 323(5) of the Excise Tax Act with the effect that a director is not liable for the GST/HST debts of the corporation if the person ceased to be a director more than 2 years ago:

An assessment under subsection (4) of any amount payable by a person who is a director of a corporation shall not be made more than two years after the person last ceased to be a director of the corporation.

There is an exception to the exception to the general rule which results in the director remaining liable for the GST/HST debts of the corporation regardless of the 2 year limitation period.  Under corporate laws, the person (individual) may be deemed to be director even if the person has submitted a formal resignation. If the corporation was incorporated pursuant to the Business Corporations Act (Ontario), subsection 115(4) would apply.  Subsection 115(4) of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) provides:

Where all of the directors have resigned or have been removed by the shareholders without replacement, any person who manages or supervises the management of the business and affairs of the corporation shall be deemed to be a director for the purposes of this Act.

The corporations laws of other provinces of Canada may contain similar provisions.

Judge Paris of the Tax Court of Canada makes the point in Snively that the Excise Tax Act does not provide a complete answer to the question of director's liability:

It is well established that, since “director” is not a defined term in the ETA, it is appropriate to look to a corporation’s incorporating legislation for determining whether a person was a director of a corporation at a particular time for the purposes of section 323. ...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

To my knowledge, there have been no studies on this topic.  If I could ask Shelia Fraser for one favour, it would be to ask the above question. Women are increasingly starting small to medium sized businesses and are taking important roles in large businesses. What I want to know is if women business owners are treated differently than male counterparts in the setting of a sales tax audit.

I have represented many women business owners whose business has undergone a sales tax audit.  Women are generally more organized and prepared for the audit.  The reason is that the letter informing of the upcoming audit is stressful to women business owners. Some women business owners are more emotional in their response to the letter.  Why wouldn't you feel stress?  Many women started their business to provide for a family.  This means that an unfair assessment takes food and opportunities away from the children of the women business owner.  The lioness will protect her cubs.

I have seen good auditors and bad auditors.  I have seen some bad auditors belittle the women business owner.  I have heard bad auditors make personal comments about women business owners in their presence and these comments have no relevance in the context of the audit.  I have seen bad auditors demand documents and make negative comments about the time taken to respond to requests.  I have seen bad auditors treat women business owners as a waitress or secretary.  I have seen bad auditors ignore the answers of a women business owner and seek out a male employee to answer questions.  I have seen bad auditors misstate the law or the tax authority's policies knowing that it would create fear or feelings of powerlessness.  I have seen bad auditors attempt to break the spirit of the women business owner in order to cause audit mistakes and misstatements that can be used against the women business owner in the assessment and justify the auditor's decisions. 

When these bad auditors behave badly, the business owner should ask for a meeting with the auditor's supervisor or manager.  The auditor should provide the name of his/her supervisor and the contact details.  If the auditor will not provide that information, the business owner should call the tax authority to obtain it.  Often it is possible to get information about the GST/HST auditor's supervisor on the Government of Canada Employee Directory website.  As a word of warning, you have to be careful when taking this step and there must be real evidence of treatment outside the normal range for an audit (never a pleasant experience for women and men) or evidence of a disagreement that requires a supervisor's intervention.

While self-serving, the assistance of a sales tax lawyer also helps.

This blog article is for all the women business owners who have had an audit experience and would like to share their lessons learned with other women.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I am often reminded of President Ronald Reagan's famous quote when talking to a person who has received a "nice" letter from the tax authorities informing them about an upcoming sales tax audit of their business - "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

The truth is that a sales tax auditor is coming to visit to find non-compliance with sales tax laws and yes, "they really are out to get you".  They may phrase their intentions in the positive.  They may say that they are there to confirm compliance with sales tax laws. However, it is my experience that most young auditors are eager to show their bosses in the tax authorities that they are good at their job, which is finding the mistakes.  The older auditors are jaded and they take the Dr. House approach "everybody lies".  There are some auditors who have industry specific knowledge and a positive approach (I can recall an Ontario retail sales tax auditor who audited a bar owner client 4-5 years back), but they are the special ones.  This category of auditors know that no one is perfect and they deal with the imperfections with dignity and respect.  They show respect for taxpayer fairness (like taxpayers are treated the same) and fair treatment of taxpayers.

Sales tax auditors ask in their nice letter concerning the audit for information to be available for their review when they arrive to conduct the audit.  During the audit they ask questions and ask for more documents to be made available for their review.  I always recommend that a client organize all the requested documents prior to the arrival of the auditor and for the client to have those documents in folders on the table/desk/work area the auditor will use during the audit.  I also recommend that the client undertake their own sample review two weeks before the scheduled audit to find the mistakes before the auditor. This is the equivalent of looking under the bed for monsters.

If I am called in at the time the letter arrives, I ask the same questions that the auditor will ask about the business.  If there is time, I help the client write a customized memo to the auditor about their business, the sales tax laws that are applicable and the tax authority's administrative statements and ruling letters that are applicable. This is the equivalent of becoming comfortable in ones surroundings and knowing how to respond to dangers that may arise.

A business owner should not be paranoid, but should be vigilant.  The business owner can be pro-active.  The business owner can participate in the audit process in a way that reduces the stress and feeling of lack of control.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The answer is "for not much longer".  It will be hard to argue that the CRA should be lenient in regards to any harmonized sales tax ("HST") implementaion errors --- but, I can gurantee you that every lawyer who practices in this error will try.  We have a number of good reasons to request leniency.

That is not the point of this posting.  The point I am trying to make is that if you are not sure that your implementation efforts are correct, it would be prudent to conduct an internal audit and check your GST/HST systems.  Finding errors before the one-year anniversary of HST in Ontario and British Columbia is better than not asking the question at all.  Do not be afraid of what you might find -- be more concerned about not finding the errors and being audited by an unforgiving CRA auditor.  The CRA may be lenient if you conduct an internal audit and adjust systems before the one year anniversary.  They may see this as a sign of compliance and of acting as a "good" suppler/purchaser/consumer.

What I can tell you is that if you undertake an internal audit and find the errors and fix the system errors, you will have good argument that you deserve lenient treatment.  Mom used to say "actions speak louder than words".

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I honestly do not know the answer to this question.  I am baffled when a client comes to me after they have completed and sent to the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") their voluntary disclosure form in which they admit to a mistake in their harmonized sales tax (HST) compliance. They have already confessed their errors.  Then, when they see the HST assessment, the do not agree with the number and have a list of reasons.

I have been asked on many occasions to help correct the CRA auditor's misunderstanding of the facts - the same facts provided by the client in writing to the CRA in the voluntary disclosure form.  I cannot count the number of times a client has said to me "I did not mean to write that", "I should have been more careful in what I wrote", "I did not verify that information and it is in fact wrong", "I did not think about that", and "I just wrote something quickly".  I am asked to "fix this" ---  and, I have my work cut out for me.

Voluntary disclosures are similar to a "confession", albeit a voluntary disclosure is not often relaying criminal activities.  However, it is possible that a person will write information in a voluntary disclosure that could be used in a criminal investigation under the Excise Tax Act.  If you would seek the help of a lawyer when writing a confession, then seek the help of a lawyer when completing a voluntary disclosure form.  If you would take time to investigate facts and write, edit, review, redraft and reconsider the writing of a confession, then take time when completing a voluntary disclosure form. If you would take time to understand the consequences of writing a confession, then take time to understand the consequences of completing a voluntary disclosure.  If you would not want to cause a misunderstanding when writing a confession, then avoid misunderstandings when completing a voluntary disclosure form.

If you do not understand the law, you may miss opportunities to raise good facts that may be used to your benefit --- your actions have not all been bad have they?  You may not convey the important information and facts that support defences (such as the due diligence defence).  You may miss opportunities to support lower penalties.  You may miss opportunities to limit interest if there has been an officially induced error. 

Did you know that the CRA audits to "net tax" or do you even know what I mean by that?  You may be able to identify amounts that the CRA owes you and when you calculate "net tax" for the period in which you owe GST/HST, you may be able to subtract amounts you can show the government owes you.  There is a lot more to consider than "getting things off your chest".

Now that I have said my piece - here is the voluntary disclosure form.  The CRA calls this form "VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURES PROGRAM (VDP): TAXPAYER AGREEMENT", do not let the name fool you or cause you to be complacent.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The worst goods and services tax (GST) / harmonized sales tax (HST) infraction is collecting HST and not remitting the GST/HST to the Receiver General of Canada.  The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) considers this to be on the same level of wrongdoing as stealing the government's money.  Many auditors say to registrants and non-registrants who charge HST who do not file GST/HST returns after collecting GST/HST from recipients  or who file returns without the remittance cheque that they are stealing the government's money.

GST/HST is a tax on consumers or on consumption.  Generally speaking, businesses do not bear the ultimate burden of the GST/HST.  However, the Government of Canada relies on suppliers to collect GST/HST from recipients of taxable supplies.  If a business takes advantage of the fact that they collect GST/HST and keep the government's money, the system breaks down.

This is why there is no limitation period for this type of infraction.  If a person collected GST from a recipient in 2001 and did not remit it to the Receiver General, that person could be audited and assessed today.  If the person is a corporation and still in business, the CRA could assess a director if the money cannot be recovered from the corporation.  If the person is a corporation and no longer is in business, the CRA could assess a former director so long as the director did not cease to be a director more than 2 years ago.  If the person is a partnership, the CRA may assess one or more of the partners.  If the person is a sole proprietorship, the individual may be assessed.

When a supplier discovers that it collected tax and failed to remit it (for example a bookkeeper was stealing the money) over a lengthy period of time and makes a voluntary disclosure, the CRA may ask the person to go back in their records to the very beginning (at least until the start of GST or the systematic failure).  The interest charges on the unremitted GST/HST can exceed the amount not remitted (I have seen theis many times).

The person who does not register for GST/HST purposes and who falsely informs recipients that they are registered, gives a false GST/HST number, and takes the GST/HST money for themselves is arguably the worst of the worst type of offender.  Persons who do this may be prosecuted criminally for fraud and other GST/HST specific offences. Persons who collect GST/HST from recipients and just keep the money may also be prosecuted under the Excise Tax Act and the CRA publicly announces convictions.

Some businesses that commit this type of infraction have "good" explanations after their wrongdoing is discovered.  It is not easy to convince the CRA that the decisions are not blameworthy.  If you think that you will just tell the CRA a reasonable story and they will not issue an assessment for the tax not remitted plus penalties plus interest, you are living in a fantasy world.  There are few very good explanations that satisfy the conditions of the fairness policy or that pass the smell test.

For this reason, if you discover (not in the context of an audit because that would be too late) that you have collected GST/HST and failed to remit it, the best course of action is to make a voluntary disclosure (not the type within the CRA's voluntary disclosure program but voluntary in that you come forward on your own initiative).  If you admit your wrongdoing to the CRA (with a lawyer preferably) and pay the GST/HST collected and not previously remitted (or make arrangements to pay the amounts owed) and penalties and interest, the CRA may not pursue criminal charges.  There is a risk of criminal charges even if you come forward voluntarily and that is why making a voluntary disclosure with a lawyer's assistance is prudent.

For more information, please contact Cyndee Todgham Cherniak at 416-760-8999.  I am a lawyer and our discussions will be subject to solicitor-client privilege.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There are good assessments (being nil assessments) and bad assessments (you own money to the Ministry).  This blog post is going to list the most common types of Ontario retail sales tax (ORST) assessments.  It is not a complete list of every type, but I will hit the highlights:

1. Assessment of a vendor who has collected ORST and failed to remit the ORST;

2. Assessment of a vendor a penalty for failure to collect ORST from a purchaser as required (including innocent mistakes);

3. Assessment of a purchaser who did not pay ORST to a vendor as required (even when the vendor did not ask for the ORST or honestly thought the sale was exempt);

4. Assessment of a director for the ORST liability of the corporation;

5. Assessment of a person who imports taxable goods into Ontario;

6. Assessment of a person who hires a non-resident contractor (who has not coordinated with Ontario) who builds real property in Ontario and imports building materials; 

7. Assessment of a person who over claimed a rebate or refund;

8. Assessment of a buyer of a business to which the bulk sales tax applies in circumstances where the vendor owes Ontario ORST on past activities and the buyer did not get a clearance certificate; and

9. Assessment of an assignee, liquidator, administrator, receiver, receiver-manager, secured or unsecured creditor, agent of the creditor, trustee or other like persons who distribute property or proceeds from the sale without obtaining a clearance certificate from the province and there are outstanding ORST liabilities.

Another categorization of assessments that you should be aware of are:

A) interim assessment - meaning that the auditor has guessed the amount and not finished his/her work before issuing an assessment;

B) audit summary: this is not an assessment; 

C) final assessment: this is an assessment if it is in the form of a notice of assessment; and

D) revised assessment: if an auditor issues an assessment and subsequently revises the assessment, the new assessment generally replaces the previous assessment (if it relates to the same transactions) and restarts the limitation period for filing a notice of objection.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Ontario retail sales tax auditors are busy auditing vendors who applied for vendor permit numbers prior to July 1, 2010 (prior to the implementation of HST). The sales side audits sometimes disclose that a vendor failed to charge ORST to a purchaser (often years after the fact).

I cannot count the times a vendor has asked me if the auditor can collect the same Ontario retail sales tax (ORST) from both a vendor and a purchaser.  The answer is "NO".  If a purchaser has been assessed and paid the ORST in connection with a transaction with a vendor, the vendor cannot be assessed the same ORST.  This would be double tax.  This would be the government taking advantage of both parties to the oversight.

Section 20(3) of the Retail Sales Tax Act provides:

"The Minister may assess against every vendor who has failed to collect tax that the vendor is responsible to collect under this Act a penalty equal to the amount of tax that the vendor failed to collect, but, where the Minister has assessed such tax against the purchaser from whom it should have been collected, the Minister shall not assess the vendor." (emphasis added)

I often advise vendors to call their purchasers to see if they have been assessed ORST with respect to their transactions.  If the answer is "yes", the vendor needs to receive information to provide to the auditor --- and quickly. 

I was surprised recently to learn that an auditor was busy auditing a vendor and discovered that it had not charged ORST systematically on goods that the vendor thought was exempt.  The Ministry was auditing the purchasers at the same time.  I provided information to the auditors concerning the overlapping audits as the vendor and purchasers worked out how to deal with their ORST issue.

If you ask the auditor to check to see if they have assessed purchasers, the auditors usually decline (okay, the appropriate word may be "refuse").  That being said, I have met a few nice auditors in my day and, when the transactions involve only a few big relationships, the auditor has (in limited cases) obliged.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link