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

The March 21, 2013 Federal Budget in Canada announced new administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) and criminal offences under the Excise Tax Act (Canada) for:

(1) the use of  Electronic Suppression of Sales (ESS) software;

(2) the possession or acquisition of ESS software; and/or

(3) the manufacture, development, sale, possession for sale, offer for sale or otherwise making available ESS software.

ESS software is also known as "zapper" software because it hides sales transactions, thereby allowing vendors to under-state sales and evade payment of GST/HST and income taxes. This has been a hot audit topic for a number of years and the Department of Finance is giving the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) new tools to rid Canada of zapper software.

The AMPS penalties will shock the vendors who use ESS software or possess or acquire ESS software.  Vendors who use ESS software may be assessed an AMPs penalty in the amount of $5,000 for the first infraction and $50,000 on any subsequent infraction.  Vendors who possess or acquire ESS software may be assessed an AMPs penalty in the amount of $5,000 for the first infraction and $50,000 on any subsequent infraction.  These two AMPs penalties go hand-in-hand because a vendor who acquires or possesses ESS software is also likely to use it.  Both AMPs penalties can be imposed against the same vendor.  Also, if the CRA issues a first level AMPs penalty, it will also require the ESS software to be removed from the computer.  If ESS software is subsequently discovered in a new audit, it is likely second level AMPs will be imposed.  It may be possible that the CRA will interpret the AMPs penalties on a per transaction basis because the penalties may be imposed on a per infraction basis.

Businesses that manufacture, develop, sell, possess for sale, offer for sale or otherwise make available ESS software for sale will receive higher voltage AMPs.  The AMPS penalty for a first infraction is $10,000 and $100,000 for any subsequent infraction.  This AMPs penalty aims to end the supply of ESS software in Canada.

There is a limited due diligence defense available for vendors who acquire and possess ESS software and businesses that manufacture, develop, sell, possess for sale, offer for sale or otherwise make available ESS software for sale.  The due diligence defence will generally require a person to show that exercised the degree of care, diligence and skill to prevent the contravention with respect to ESS software that a reasonably prudent person would have used in comparable circumstances.  There may be cases where the person has attempted to ensure that they do not have ESS software and it has been installed on their computers. There may be a bug in a computer program that disrupts the sales records, but it was not intended.

In addition to the AMPs penalties, businesses that manufacture, develop, sell, possess for sale, offer for sale or otherwise make available ESS software for sale may also be subject to criminal sanctions.  The potential fines are as low as $10,000 (in addition to the AMPs penalties) and as high as $1,000,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 5 years or both.

These new AMPs penalties and criminal sanctions will take effect January 1, 2014.  Given the time before implementation, it may be prudent to spend money on an IT check-up (it will likely cost less than a first level AMP).

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

When a business sells its assets by way for a sale in bulk (or the Bulk Sales Act applies), it does not do so in the normal course of its business.  Usually, one of the preconditions to closing a transaction (one of the vendor closing documents in an asset purchase) is a certification from the provincial sales tax authorities to the vendor that all provincial sales taxes have been paid or arrangement have been made by the vendor to pay the taxes. The vendor provides this certification to the purchaser.  When this certification is provided, the provincial sales tax authorities cannot pursue the purchaser for the unpaid provincial sales taxes of the vendor.  When this certification is not obtained, the provincial sales tax authorities may pursue the purchaser for the unpaid sales taxes of the vendor.

If an asset purchase transaction involves or includes assets located in British Columbia on the closing date, it may be necessary to obtain a clearance certificate from British Columbia.

The BC Ministry of Finance released FIN 447 "Application for Certification" on March 28, 2013.  Vendors use this form to submit their application for a certificate.  It may be completed to cover provincial sales taxes and other provincial indirect/commodity taxes (such as tobacco tax, motor fuel tax, carbon tax, social service tax, and hotel room tax).

What is most interesting about this form is that the lawyers for the purchaser may file the form (previously, the lawyers for the vendor were the the party who requested the clearance certificate and could not control the delivery).  While the vendor (person whose tax records are to be searched) must sign the form giving authorization for the search, the purchaser may be the submitter of the form and the party receiving the information.

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

Individuals who are directors of corporations may be held jointly responsible for unremitted GST/HST if the corporation fails to pay an assessed amount. Often after the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") is advised of a bankruptcy filing by the corporation, the CRA writes a short letter to the directors seeking information. Most letters from the CRA are unwelcome surprises - these letters may be an opportunity.

The letter from the CRA reads something like the following and often causes the recipient to panic:

"Under Section 323 of the "Excise Tax Act", the directors of a corporation may be held jointly and severally, or solidarily, liable together with the corporation to pay the corporations GS/HST arrears.

Based on CRA information, you may be liable for the unremitted GST / HST of [Corporation Name] and we are considering assessing you personally for [amount].

The due diligence provision of subsection 323(3) of the "Excise Tax Act" provides that the directors are not liable if they have exercised the care, diligence and skill expected of a competent person in the circumstances.  If you feel that you are not liable and that we should not issue an assessment, please provide written reasons and supporting documents which, in your opinion show you are not liable and return them to this office in 30 days."

It is important to respond to this letter from the CRA.  If you do not respond, the CRA will in all likelihood issue an assessment against you personally.  They are giving you an opportunity - you should take it.  Rather than fighting an assessment, it is better to prevent the assessment in the first place.

That being said, it is important to carefully write the letter.  Anything you write may be used against you and may be used to support their assessment of you.  You letter may be used against you if you appeal the assessment to CRA and eventually to  the Tax court of Canada.

Similarly, be very careful in what you say to the CRA on the telephone.  The CRA may type notes in their computerized records and may used them against you.

If the assessment is large enough, it may be worthwhile to ask a GST/HST professional to help with the preparation of the letter.  Sometimes it is the manner in which the information is presented that makes all the difference between an assessment and no assessment due to acceptance of due diligence. 

Based on our experience, it costs more to prepare a notice of objection, notice of assessment, reply submissions, list of documents and participate in a hearing than to write a thoughtful and organized letter explaining one's diligence.

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

Yesterdau. I wrote a post entitled "Do You Have A Complaint About The Canada Revenue Agency?" and mentioned the Taxpayers Bill of Rights.  I provided a link to the CRA web-site.  Here are the Rights:

1. You have the right to receive entitlements and to pay no more and no less than what is required by law.

2. You have the right to service in both official languages.

3. You have the right to privacy and confidentiality.

4. You have the right to a formal review and a subsequent appeal.

5. You have the right to be treated professionally, courteously, and fairly.

6. You have the right to complete, accurate, clear, and timely information.

7. You have the right, as an individual, not to pay income tax amounts in dispute before you have had an impartial review.

8. You have the right to have the law applied consistently.

9. You have the right to lodge a service complaint and to be provided with an explanation of our findings.

10. You have the right to have the costs of compliance taken into account when administering tax legislation.

11. You have the right to expect us to be accountable.

12. You have the right to relief from penalties and interest under tax legislation because of extraordinary circumstances.

13. You have the right to expect us to publish our service standards and report annually.

14. You have the right to expect us to warn you about questionable tax schemes in a timely manner.

15. You have the right to be represented by a person of your choice.

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

I often discuss with corporate taxpayers that they have been doing things a certain way for a number of years.  Often these taxpayers were audited by the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") on a previous occasion and the taxpayer's way of doing things were blessed or the mistake was not highlighted.  I have discussed that the CRA is not bound to make the same mistake twice and can change its mind without giving notice to the taxpayer.

In a recent decision of Manotas v. the Queen, the Tax Court of Canada discussed this very issue in the context of a taxpayer claiming residency for the purposes of determining entitlement to the Goods and Service Tax Credit.  The words may be changed slightly to apply in goods and services tax ("GST") and harmonized sales tax ("HST") cases.  Judge Bowie wrote in the decision:

I have not overlooked that the appellant has chosen to file returns declaring her income in Canada each year, nor the fact that upon her departure the Minister expressed the view that she was a “factual resident of Canada”. It is not open to individuals to establish Canadian residence when that is economically beneficial to them by the simple expedient of filing a return of income under the Act. Nor is the Minister bound by his conclusion as to her residence formed a decade ago. Factual circumstances change, and conclusions change with them. But even where the circumstances remain unchanged, the Minister is free to form a different opinion as to the legal effect of the circumstances in a later time period. It is well settled that if the Minister arrives at an erroneous conclusion in assessing a taxpayer (or in determining the right to refundable credits), she is not bound to repeat that error in perpetuity: see Nedelcu v. The Queen [which was confirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal]

Sorry to be the messenger of this news. 

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

Based on personal experience and not any official report from the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA"), it is obvious to sales tax professionals that the CRA are concerned about goods and services tax ("GST") and harmonized sales tax ("HST") registrants over claiming input tax credits.

On a GST/HST return for a reporting period, the registrant must report the amount of GST/HST collected during the reporting period on its taxable sales.  However the registrant remits "net tax" after adding amounts it must add and deducting amounts it may deduct.  One of the most important category of deductions from GST/HST collected is input tax credits being claimed.  The more input tax credits, the less GST/HST that must be remitted (and in some cases, the larger the refund cheque).

The most obvious concern to CRA auditors is that GST/HST registrants claim false input tax credits when they file their GST/HST returns.  False claims are when a person did not actually purchase a business input and are making up a deduction.

One of the most common audit issues if failure to maintain records relating to input tax credits that meet the documentary requirements of subsection 196(4) of the Excise Tax Act (Canada) and the Input Tax Credit Information (GST/HST) Regulations.  The CRA will reject input tax credits when the documents to support the claims are not available or if the documents do not contain all the relevant information (e.g., the GST/HST number of the supplier).

Another common audit issue is that the input tax credit is claimed too early (and, therefore, in the incorrect reporting period.  For example, a business files monthly returns.  A business buys a building on March 2nd.  If the registration claims the input tax credit for that building purchase in the February GST/HST return, the input tax credit will be denied and moved to March.

The last two areas of concern are often a source of frustration for businesses.  Honest business owners can get caught.  They are not the bad guys who are essentially stealing money by making false claims.  They are often busy and do not have the best record-keeping systems or do not have the time to chase down a supplier for information after the goods/services are provided and the money has been paid.  They do not pour over every detail on a piece of paper because hey know what transaction transpired.

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

The Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") is looking at the characterization of telecommunication services provided by non-traditional means (such as Voice over Internet Protocol).  Which HST place of supply rule applies depends on the characterization.  What is important to know if that if the CRA does not have all the answers yet (which, it does not), you may not be charging HST properly if you do not ask them.

The CRA has already received a few advance ruling requests.  The CRA has indicated that they are looking at 4 different requests that deal with VoIP services:

• supplies of VoIP services by a non-resident supplier where the communications are initiated outside Canada, but received in Canada;
• supplies of VoIP service calling plans for a flat fee;
• supplies of VoIP services provided where the communication are initiated in Canada, but received outside Canada; and
• supplies of VoIP services provided by a non-resident where the communications are initiated and received outside Canada, but routed through a server located in Canada.

If you have similar questions, it may be wise to request an advance GST/HST ruling from the CRA.  It may take time (possibly years) before the CRA issues a policy statement based on the rulings it provides.  It also may take months or years for the CRA to publish the rulings it gives to those who have asked.  If you would like to receive your own binding ruling (that may be handed to a CRA auditor when they visit a supplier or a recipient of VoIP services), you will need to submit your own ruling request.

The great benefit of GST/HST ruling requests is that it demonstrates due diligence in the event that the CRA disagrees with you in the end.  Acts that count as "due diligence" can relive a director from a director's liability claim.

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

When I say "deregistered charities", I am referring to deregistration as a charity and not deregistration for GST/HST purposes.  If a charity that was a registered charity is deregistered as a charity (no longer considered to be a charity by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)), that entity will face a number of assessments, including GST/HST, if they do not make changes.

If an entity is deregistered as a charity, it would have to determine if the supplies made by it are exempt or taxable for GST/HST purposes.  Many supplies made by charities are exempt pursuant to Part V.1 of Schedule V to the Excise Tax Act (Canada).  A key pre-condition to the exemption may not be satisfied after deregistration.  If the exemption is no longer available and the entity does not change its invoicing (charging) practices, it may be assessed for failure to collect GST/HST.

If supplies become taxable (when a charity no longer makes exempt supplies), the entity must determine if they may claim input tax credits paid by it on business inputs.  The accountants and book-keepers will have to undertake a careful review.  If the entity does not claim input tax credits, it may lose its opportunity.

If an entity is deregistered as a charity, it would no longer be entitled to claim public service body rebates to recover otherwise unrecoverable GST/HST paid on business inputs.  Charities may claim a public service body rebate of 50% of the GST portion.  Depending on the province(s) in which a charity operates, the charity may claim another rebate for the PVAT (provincial) component.  If the charity is deregistered, a key pre-condition of entitlement will no longer apply.  If the entity does not change the way it completes its GST/HST return, it may be assessed to draw back rebates improperly claimed.

There are many other changes that may be experienced by specific charities.  For example, certain charities take advantage of the election in section 211 of the Excise Tax Act (Canada) and that benefit would no longer be available.  Certain volunteer reimbursements and allowance rules would not longer be available. Certain charities could deregister for GST/HST if they are below the small supplier threshold for charities. 

If the CRA is talking about deregistration of an entity as a charity, that entity needs to address the issues in that discussion.  If they ignore the CRA during the deregistration process and do not take steps to revisit all elements of charging GST/HST and taking advantage of entitlements, there may be costly assessments against the former charity and/or the directors of the charity.

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

In the recent Excise and GST/HST News No. 80 (Spring 2011)  (GST/HST News 80) published by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), the CRA puts on notice a list of health care professionals that it considers to offer TAXABLE services.  Many of these health care professionals are likely not charging goods and services tax (GST) or harmonized sales tax (HST).  This means, if these categories of health care professionals are audited by the CRA, it is likely that assessments will be issued.  In the HST provinces (Nova Scotia (15%), Ontario, Newfoundland/Labrador, New Brunswick (13%), British Columbia (12%)), the assessments may add up to large amounts.

GST/HST News 80 puts health care professionals on notice. 

The CRA's position is:

General Rule: Any basic health care service rendered to an individual by a health care professional that is specifically identified in Part II of Schedule V to the Excise Tax Act are exempt.  In other words, you find the category of health care service or health care professional in that Schedule by name or description.

According to the CRA, the following services by the following provincially regulated (licensed or otherwise certified) health care professionals rendered to individuals/patients are specifically identified in Part II of Schedule V to the Excise Tax Act are as a general rule exempt:

• physicians,
• dentists and orthodontists,
• registered nurses, registered nursing assistants, licensed or registered practical nurses, registered psychiatric nurses,
• optometrists,
• chiropractors,
• physiotherapists,
• chiropodists,
• audiologists,
• speech-language pathologists,
• occupational therapists,
• psychologists,
• podiatrists,
• midwives,
• dieticians,
• social workers, and
• dental hygienists.

Exception to General Rule: Any health care service provided by other therapists and health care workers are TAXABLE.  If you cannot find a category of health care professional or health care worker in Part I of Schedule V to the Excise Tax Act, their service re likely taxable.

While these other therapists and workers may be professionals in their fields and they may be certified in  their province or territory, they are not identified in the Part II of Schedule V to the Excise Tax Act. Therefore the Act’s exemptions do not apply to their services even where, for example, the service is similar to a service performed by an identified health care provider, such as a nurse or physiotherapist. Some examples of therapists and other health care workers whose
services are generally considered by the CRA to be taxable for GST/HST purposes are (this is not an exhaustive list):

• assistants such as physiotherapy and occupational therapy assistants
• social service workers (this is a separate profession from social workers)
• laboratory technicians;
• psychometrists;
• nursing care aides;
• polysomnographic technologists;
• acupuncturists;
• kinesiologists;
• massage therapists;
• naturopaths;
• reflexologists;
• homeopaths;
• reiki therapists;
• sports therapists;
• rolfing therapists;
• traditional Chinese medicine providers;
• phlebotomists;
• personal support workers.

Exception to Exception: Certain services provided by an health care professional or health care worker listed above may qualify as exempt when provided to an individual in an exempt health care setting. For example, supplies made by the operator of a nursing home of services rendered by nursing care aides are exempt when they form part of an exempt institutional health care service rendered to a resident of the nursing home. In addition, services similar to those rendered by the providers listed above may be exempt when rendered by an identified exempt health care provider. For instance, if physiotherapists are entitled under the provincial law that regulates physiotherapy services to perform acupuncture on their clients in the course of
providing physiotherapy services, then their physiotherapy services that involve acupuncture would be exempt.

There are many other exceptions to the general rule.  For example, health care services provided by the exempt list of professionals to corporations (not rendered to individuals or patients) are taxable.  Also, certain services (e.g., cosmetic procedures, teeth whitening, etc.) are taxable even when provided by a licensed professional.

GST/HST News 80 has been provided because the CRA auditors need tools when going to audit health care professionals.  There is an increased likelihood that health care professionals will be in the CRA national priority list for audits this year and in the coming years.

If you are not sure whether you are required to charge GST/HST or not, you should contact a GST/HST lawyer or professional. You may also write the CRA for a GST/HST ruling.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Section 323 of the Excise Tax Act (Canada) permits the Canada Revenue Agency to assess a director of a corporation the unpaid and unremitted goods and services tax (GST) / harmonized sales tax (HST) assessed against a corporation if the corporation does not pay the GST/HST debt.  In Boles v. The Queen, a director, Mr. Boles, was assessed $23,000. 

The facts are not succinctly summarized at the start of the case.  It appears that in the 1990s, two men operated a number of businesses together.  Mr. Clark at some point became the primary owner of the company and Mr. Boles what bought out.  However, Mr. Boles completed paperwork to stay on as a director of the corporation that was the operating business.  He may or may not have forgotten about the paperwork he had signed.  Mr. Boles was not involved in the day-to-day management of the corporation.  Mr. Clark died at some point.  The CRA assessed Mr. Boles for the GST debts of the corporation.  The case does not say whether the CRA attempted to collect the tax debt from the estate of the deceased director.

Mr Boles fought the assessment saying that he did not realize that he was a director of the company and had asked, while Mr. Clark was alive, to cease to be a director.  The Tax Court of Canada confirmed the assessment after finding that Mr. Boles (1) was a director of the tax debtor corporation, (2) did not cease to be a director of the tax debtor corporation, and (3) did not exercise due diligence to prevent the tax debt.  The Tax Court also awarded costs to the Crown.  In the end, Mr. Boles must pay the $23,000 and costs.

Judge Boyle writes a short decision.  He summarizes the law at the beginning of the case:

"The most recent pronouncement on the scope of director’s liability for unremitted GST or income tax withholdings and upon director’s possible defences thereto are set out by the Federal Court of Appeal in its recent decision in Canada v. Buckingham, 2011 FCA 142, dated April 21, 2011. In Buckingham the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that the scope of the director’s liability provisions is potentially broad and far reaching in order to effectively move the risk for a failure to remit by a corporation from the fisc and Canadian taxpayers generally to the directors of the corporation, being those persons legally entitled to supervise, control or manage the management of its affairs. The Court also confirmed that a director seeking to be exculpated for having exercised reasonable care, diligence and skill must have taken those steps “to prevent the failure” to remit and not to cure it thereafter. Further, the standard of care, diligence and skill required is overall an objective standard. Specifically, the Court wrote:

38 . . . Stricter standards also discourage the appointment of inactive directors chosen for show or who fail to discharge their duties as director by leaving decisions to the active directors. Consequently, a person who is appointed as a director must carry out the duties of that function on an active basis and will not be allowed to defend a claim for malfeasance in the discharge of his or her duties by relying on his or her own inaction. . .

. . .

40 . . . In order to rely on these defences, a director must thus establish that he turned his attention to the required remittances and that he exercised his duty of care, diligence and skill with a view to preventing a failure by the corporation to remit the concerned amounts.

And later:

52 Parliament did not require that directors be subject to an absolute liability for the remittances of their corporations. Consequently, Parliament has accepted that a corporation may, in certain circumstances, fail to effect remittances without its directors incurring liability. What is required is that the directors establish that they were specifically concerned with the tax remittances and that they exercised their duty of care, diligence and skill with a view to preventing a failure by the corporation to remit the concerned amounts."

What is more interesting in Boles v. the Queen is the short hind-sight being 20/20 comment:

• "... once one is a director, legal steps must be complied with to cease to be a director and Mr. Boles did not make any inquiry or attempt to do that. Apparently, he did not even send a confirmation letter to Mr. Clark asking for him to have the paperwork prepared to remove him as a director."

Note to all the directors out there, follow-up is important. 

The more significant lesson is that a business partner may die and the surviving directors may be required to pay GST/HST debts.  The surviving directors should ask questions of the executors the estate of the deceased director and document their due diligence activities.

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

First, it is important to note that not all payments made by a limited partnership to the general partner are taxable from a goods and services tax (GST) / harmonized sales tax (HST) perspective.  The determination of whether GST/HST is payable/collectible can only be determined based on the facts. 

That being said, the belief that any and all payments from limited partnership to the general partner are outside the reach of GST/HST is incorrect.  The reason why it is important to consider the GST/HST status of such payments is that the general partner may be assessed by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for failure to collect and remit GST/HST (or the limited partnership may be assessed by the CRA for failure to pay GST/HST) on certain amounts.  With the implementation of HST, the failure to consider the GST/HST status of payments increased from a 5% error in Ontario to a 13% error (from a 5% error in British Columbia to a 12% error and from a 13% error in Nova Scotia to a 15% error).

As discussed in my post on June 7, 2011 "Partners & Partnerships: Transfers Are Tricky", partners are required to charge, collect and remit GST/HST in respect of supplies of property or a service to the partnership otherwise than in the course of the partnership’s activities. Partners are not required to charge, collect and remit GST/HST in respect of supplies property or a service to the partnership that are provided in the in the course of the partnership’s activities.

The CRA takes the position that with respect to certain amounts of consideration paid by the limited partnership to the general partner, the general partner may be considered to provide property/services "otherwise than in the course of partnership activities".

The CRA also takes the position that the structuring of payments by the limited partnership to the general partner is important.  There are many payments/distributions/amounts of consideration that the CRA may look at in this context and it is beyond the scope of this blog article to address every one detail.  That being said, the CRA has seen structures whereby the general partner is paid amounts prior to the determination of profits and losses of the partnership and scrutinizes these payments.  The issue is whether any amount paid in such a manner is an expense for property provided or services rendered otherwise than in the course of partnership activities.

As discussed in my June 7, 2011 blog article, if a partner (in this context of this blog post, a general partner) performs a type of service in the marketplace or to more than one limited partnership/entity, the CRA may take the position that the services rendered otherwise than in the course of partnership activities.  For example, if a general partner provides management services to more than one entity, it may be considered to be a management services company and the amounts paid by the limited partnership to the general partner may be considered to be taxable.

General partners who did not seek GST/HST advice in connection with the structuring of the limited partnership may have missed this issue and should revisit the GST/HST status of the various payments of consideration.  This is especially important if the limited partnership/general partner operates in the financial services sector, health care sector, residential real estate sector or MUSH sector because it is less likely that the mistakes will be in the context of wash transactions (that is, there is an offsetting input tax credit to reduce the exposure).

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

Partners and partnerships are different legal entities for goods and services tax (GST) / harmonized sales tax (HST) purposes. Pursuant to subsection 123(1) of the Excise Tax Act (Canada), a partnership is a "person".   This is different than many tax statutes which do not treat partnerships as persons.  As a result of a partnership being a person, a partnership is obligated to register for GST/HST purposes (unless it is a small supplier), charge GST/HST, claim input tax credits and comply with the provisions of the Excise Tax Act (Canada). 

One provision that must be highlighted when one talks of partnerships is section 272.1 of the Excise Tax Act (Canada), which contains specific rules that are applicable to partnerships. It is important to note that the other rules in the legislation are also applicable. 

Subsection 272.1(3) is very important for GST/HST planning for partners and partnerships.  I often see tax structures where partner of a partnership receives consideration from the partnership and does not collect GST/HST.  This is often incorrect and a sign that a GST/HST professional has not been involved in the tax planning.

Subsection 272.1(3) of the Excise Tax Act addresses when a partner is considered to make supplies to a partnership and provides as follows:

Where a person who is or agrees to become a member of a partnership supplies property or a service to the partnership otherwise than in the course of the partnership’s activities

(a) where the property or service is acquired by the partnership for consumption, use or supply exclusively in the course of commercial activities of the partnership, any amount that the partnership agrees to pay to or credit the person in respect of the property or service is deemed to be consideration for the supply that becomes due at the time the amount is paid or credited; and

(b) in any other case, the supply is deemed to have been made for consideration that becomes due at the time the supply is made equal to the fair market value at that time of the property or service acquired by the partnership determined as if the person were not a member of the partnership and were dealing at arm’s length with the partnership.

What this means is that partners are required to charge, collect and remit GST/HST in respect of supplies of property or a service to the partnership otherwise than in the course of the partnership’s activities. Partners are not required to charge, collect and remit GST/HST in respect of supplies property or a service to the partnership that are provided in the in the course of the partnership’s activities.

What is "otherwise than in the course of partnership activities" is the point of contention between the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and partners/partnerships.  The concept is not defined in the Excise Tax Act (Canada). Advisors must look at a number of administrative statements and Q&As to understand what will be the CRA's position concerning planned activities.  If a taxpayer would like certainty, they may apply for a GST/HST ruling.

The following example may help:  I am a GST/HST lawyer.  If I was to become a partner of a partnership (or my firm) and if I was to provide GST/HST advice to the partnership, I would be required to charge, collect and remit GST/HST in respect of the consideration I received for that advice.  The CRA would take the position that my GST/HST advice was not provided "in the course of partnership activities" because I provide GST/HST advice to others outside of my partnership activities.

It is beyond the scope of this blog post to provide a complete answer to all questions relating to partnerships and partners.  Tax planning must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 

I should note that have seen CRA auditors assess directors of corporations who are members of a partnership under the director's liability provisions in situations where the partner (corporation) does not collect GST/HST when required and the corporate partner does not pay the GST/HST liability.  The directors do not consider that the activities of the partnership or the tax structuring could get them into GST/HST trouble.

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

Amalgamations are the combining of one or more corporation to form a new entity.  For example, Corporation A and Corporation B can amalgamate under corporate laws to form Corporation AB.  The assets and liabilities are transferred to the newly amalgamated entity.  The question arises whether there are GST/HST consequences.

The answer is found, in part, in paragraph 271(c) of the Excise Tax Act (Canada), which provides that:

Where two or more corporations (each of which is referred to in this section as a “predecessor”) are merged or amalgamated to form one corporation (in this section referred to as the “new corporation”), ... for the purposes of this Part, the transfer of any property by a predecessor to the new corporation as a consequence of the merger or amalgamation shall be deemed not to be a supply.

The rest of the answer is overlooked by many advisors.  Paragraph 271(a) of the Excise Tax Act (Canada) provides that for some purposes the new corporation is deemed to be a separate person form each of the predecessor corporations. Paragraph 271(b) of the Excise Tax Act (Canada) provides that for the purposes of applying certain prescribed provisions, the new corporation shall be deemed to be the same corporation as, and a continuation of, each predecessor corporation. The list of prescribed provisions is contained in the Amalgamation and Winding-up Continuation (GST/HST) Regulations. The list includes

1. Section 120
2. Definition “builder” in subsection 123(1)
3. Section 134
4. Section 148
5. Section 148.1
6. Subsection 149(1)
7. Section 150
8. Section 156
9. Section 160
10. Section 166
11. Section 181.1
12. Section 182
13. Subsections 183(2) and (4) to (8)
14. Subsections 184(2) to (7)
15. Subsection 186(1)
16. Section 194
17. Section 219
18. Section 222
19. Subsection 223(2)
20. Section 224
21. Section 225
22. Section 227
23. Section 228
24. Section 229
25. Section 230
26. Section 230.1
27. Section 232
28. Section 233
29. Section 237
30. Section 238
31. Section 261
32. Section 263
33. Section 263.1
34. Section 264
35. Section 265
36. Section 266
37. Section 273
38. Section 274
39. Divisions VIII and IX of PART IX

Two additional provisions that are affected by an amalgamation are sections 231 and 249 of the Excise Tax Act.

It is beyond the scope of this short blog article to address each of these provisions in detail. I would like to highlight that the past GST/HST liabilities (and entitlements) continue in the new corporation.  for this reason, it is important to undertake due diligence of GST/HST accounts before agreeing to an amalgamation because the new corporation may end up saddled with old GST/HST debts and the new directors may ultimately be assessed if the GST/HST debts cannot be recovered from the new corporation.

There is another important issue that is overlooked - registration numbers.  Often, the advisors forget to notify the government authorities (including the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for GST/HST purposes) about the amalgamation and continue with one of the registration numbers of a predecessor corporation.  This is wrong.  Technically, the the new corporation needs to obtain a new GST/HST registration number.  It is possible to ask the CRA if one of the GST/HST numbers of a predecessor entity may be continued and the other registration numbers canceled.

An amalgamation is an event for GST/HST purposes that has consequences.  For more information, please contact Cyndee Todgham Cherniak at 316-760-8999.

• 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

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

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

The recent Tax Court of Canada decision in Elliott v. The Queen (written by Justice D'Arcy) (January 28, 2011) summarizes the thinking of the Court when considering a request to apply the due diligence defence by directors who have been assessed personally for failures by a corporation that cannot pay the goods and services tax (GST) and harmonized sales tax (HST) debts.  In this case, a restaurant corporation failed to remit HST that had been collected from patrons at the restaurant.  The restaurant closed and was assessed HST by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for amounts that had been reported on GST/HSTreturns as having been collected, but was not remitted.  The HST debt was not collected from the corporation.  The CRA, Collections went to the Federal Court for a certificate and eventually sent the sheriff with a writ or search and seizure to collect from the corporation.  Only after the sheriff failed to collect any money did the CRA assess the 3 directors of the restaurant corporation.

The directors appealed the assessment and argued that the CRA auditor did not adequately consider the due diligence defence.  Pursuant to subsection 323(3) of the Excise Tax Act, a director is not liable under subsection 323(1) where "the director exercised the degree of care, diligence and skill to prevent the failure that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in comparable circumstances."

The directors in this case had argued that they exercised due care:

Their counsel argued that the Company's failure to remit was the result of an immediate catastrophic event (the smoking ban) that was beyond the control of the Appellants. He focused on various steps that the Appellants took to keep the business running after the City of Fredericton imposed the smoking by-law. These steps included reducing operating hours, reducing variable costs, and the injection of substantial capital by the Appellants in the form of shareholder loans. The Appellants' counsel emphasized that the Company received professional advice that the downward trend in the Pub's business would be short-term and sales would "come back."

However, the directors were focusing on the wrong test.  Judge D'Arcy applied the due diligence defence test applied in GST/HST directors liability cases that was noted by the Federal Court of Appeal in (Attorney General) v. McKinnon, [2001] 2 F.C. 203 (FCA) (at paragraph 28):

"…in deciding whether a director has “exercised the degree of care, diligence and skill to prevent the failure that a reasonably prudent person would have shown in comparable circumstances”, the court must take into account the characteristics of the directors whose conduct is in question, including their levels of relevant skill, experience and knowledge. The court must then ask whether, if faced with similar circumstances, a reasonably prudent director, with comparable levels of skill, experience and qualifications would have acted in the same way as these directors……"

In Elliott, based on the facts, the directors did not take reasonable steps to prevent the failure to remit the HST.  The appellants were inside directors and, as a result of another Court decision in Soper, they have the most difficulty in establishing the due diligence defence since they are involved in the day-to-day management of the company and influence the conduct of its business affairs.  Since the directors did nothing to "prevent" the failure to remit, their appeals were disallowed by the court.  It was clear to the Court that the directors made decisions to not remit the HST and to pay other creditors instead of remitting HST that had been collected from patrons.

Judge D'Arcy was sympathetic - he must have been- as he did not award that the appellants pay costs to the CRA for pursuing the appeal.

In this case, the Appellants did not understand what was the due diligence defence test for GST/HST purposes.  Had they understood the test and discussed their appeal with a GST/HST lawyer, they may have saved themselves the legal costs of filing appeals with the Tax Court of Canada.  By the way, Judge D'Arcy was one of the best GST/HST lawyers in the business.  His decision is well written and should help future appellants (and their non-specialist counsel).

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

Of course you would.  The "HST Map" to getting to "Right" is exactly what you want.  What should you do to get the right result every time?  What should you do to collect the right amount of HST every time you make a supply?  What should you do to calculate the right amount of input tax credits and recaptured input tax credits every time you file a GST/HST return?  What should you do to recover the maximum amount of credits, refunds & rebates allowed?  What should you do so that the Canada Revenue Agency says you are in the "Right" place when they complete any audit?

Unfortunately, these maps do not exist on supermarket shelves - but they can be generated or customized on a business-by-business basis by commodity tax lawyers and accountants.  Where "Right" is for you depends upon the facts and where you want to go.  Just as there are many cities and towns with the same name, there are many different "Right" destinations on an HST map.  If you do not know where is "Right", how are you going to determine the path to take to get there? How can you be sure you are taking the correct route to "Right"?  If you follow the directions someone else uses to get to "Right" you may be at the wrong "Right".

Once you can identify the destination of "Right", then a customized map can show you how to get there.  The customized map will set out the process that you must follow to get to your chosen "Right" destination.  The directions are a critical part of the map to "Right".

The HST map may take the form of a memorandum or opinion letter.  Sometimes the process involves seeking additional directions, which would be in the form of an advance GST/HST ruling from the Canada Revenue Agency.

It is possible to hire a commodity tax lawyer or accountant to prepare a customized HST map if you would like to get to "Right" and stay there.  These maps do exist - believe it or not.  Would you like one?

I should add one closing note that the Department of Finance may move "Right" on you when you are not looking.  Just like with the television show "Lost", you may find that you are no longer where you thought you were/should be.  Maybe the producers were thinking about the tax authorities when they came up with the plot for "Lost" --- hmmmm

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

Yesterday I had a discussion with a friend who was deciding on whether to write to the Canada Revenue Agency, GST/HST Rulings Directorate for a GST/HST ruling on an issue.  The discussion started that the client had followed advice given years ago that its supply was exempt.  The client had not collected GST for a number of years.  With the implementation of harmonized sales tax, the cost of being wrong has increased from 5% to 13% (in Ontario).  The client contacted my friend to revisit the issue.  The client does not want to be assessed - this is understandable.

The problem with writing in for an advance GST/HST ruling is that the CRA may not give the desired answer.  The CRA may disagree with the original analysis.  The CRA may see things differently.  The CRA may have given other rulings that are inconsistent with the ruling requested.  What if the CRA determines that the supply is taxable now, was previously taxable, and that the exemption did not apply to past supplies? What if the CRA determines that they were not in the "Right" place? There is a risk.

When there is a risk that the CRA will not give the ruling requested, the affected party (i.e., the client) must answer the question "Do you want to get to "Right"?  If the client wants the "Right' answer and to know where is "Right", the client should obtain an advance GST/HST ruling (which is binding) or an interpretation (which is not binding).  If the clients wants to continue to treat its supplies as exempt, then the client does not want to be at "Right".  If the client plans to ignore the ruling if it does not reaffirm what they want to do/are doing, the client does not want to be at "Right" and would increase its risk by applying for an advance GST/HST ruling.

It is important to determine whether the client (or you) want to have the "Right" answer or merely the answer the client (you) want.  They are not necessarily the same thing.

If the client (you) want to get to "Right", it is possible to prepare a customized map.  If the client(you) are not sure whether you really want to get to "Right", more thought is required on whether you do not care if you stay at 'Lost".

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

I would like to offer you words of encouragement to make positive improvements towards better goods and services tax (GST), harmonized sales tax (HST) and other sales and local taxes (SALT) compliance.  I would like to motivate you to make your working lives easier if you are blessed with the task of GST/HST/SALT recording and reporting.

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) motivates us to act by fear of negative events, such as an audit and/or assessment.  The CRA motivates compliance by threat of penalties and interest assessments.  They are not wrong in approaching GST/HST in this manner as it is a self-reporting system --- follow the rules of suffer negative consequences.  Many businesses are motivated by money and fear and this system works for some. However, it does not work for many. 

Almost all businesses have just completed the task of filing a GST/HST return.  Annual filers filed their first GST/HST by today's deadline.  Quarterly filers have filed their second GST/HST return (for Q4 2010) by today's deadline.  Monthly filers filed their December 2010 GST/HST return by today's deadline. 

How many of you have spent hours of frustration in performing the calculations and rechecking documentation and numbers in order to file the GST/HST return?  How many of you could not verify whether you were to remit GST at 5% or HST at 13% or 12% or 15%?  How many of you had to self-assess GST/HST and were unsure what to do?  How many of you needed to complete documentation for a refund/rebate and were not sure what to do?  How many of you could not trace your point of sale rebates, your exempt sales and your zero-rated sales (sales when you did not charge GST/HST)?  How many of you walked away from the task wanting to scream at assistants and others within your organization?  How many called someone in your organization and "idiot" or other unpleasant name (if you did, go apologize).

Would you like this task to be easier for the next reporting period?  Are there answers you need in order to perform the task better next month or quarter or year? Is there training that you or your employees need? Would you like to take better control over this reporting process?

If you want to make the tasks related to GST/HST reporting easier, you can. Take the negative experience and make a list of why it was a negative experience to file your GST/HST return.  Write down what worked and what did not.  GST/HST compliance will improve if you fix the things you listed as not working properly. 

Did you have difficulties making sure you claimed 100% of you input tax credits? Fix it.

Did you have difficulties making sure you recaptured input tax credits where required? Fix it. 

Did you have difficulty reconciling various reports? Fix it. 

Were you lacking information that you needed to make decisions? Fix it.

Do you need help to fix it? Find people who understand GST/HST to help you. They do exist.

You can do this.  You can improve your job. You can spend more time with family and friends during GST/HST reporting time. You can be the force of positive change and others will be grateful. what are you waiting for --- another SALT return?

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

A common issue is highlighted in the recent Tax Court of Canada GST case, Paradigm Ventures, Inc. v. The Queen. Simply put, in this case, the Appellant presented its arguments to the Court and the Court asked to see the EVIDENCE.

Let me help you picture this - remember the movie Jerry McGuire when Tom Cruise was yelling "Show me the money!"  Now picture a judge at the front of a court, wearing black robes and yelling "Show me the evidence!"

The facts in the Paradigm Ventures case are unremarkable.  They key point was that in order to win, the Appellant needed to show that delivery of goods had taken place outside of Canada.  The court wanted to agree with the Appellant, but needed evidence that factually the goods were actually delivered outside Canada.

The representative for the Appellant made bald assertions that the contracts were for delivery outside Canada (without providing any contracts).  This frustrated the judge and prompted him to write in the decision "In effect, he seems to believe that the facts of this situation speak for themselves in the context of the intended relief ...".  The judge on to write:

"Given the background to the amendment and the assurances he received, the Appellant’s representative earnestly believes, in effect, that this acknowledgment of what the Appellant does is a sufficient basis for me to allow its appeal. My repeated cautions to him that such belief may not be a sufficient basis for me to allow the appeal made little impression on him..."

The judge further goes on to add:

"His pleas then for the Appellant’s appeal to succeed on the basis of what he essentially says was the spirit of the amendment, are simply unrealistic. The amendment was understood by most, it seems, as coming with conditions and burdens of proof."

 The judge's words are helpful because we often get caught up in what we want to be the result.

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

One of the questions that is most often reviewed by business lawyers and accountants is whether a seller of a business is making "a sale of a business or part of a business".  The reason is that a lot of GST/HST may be at stake.  The other reason is that a section 167 election may be available to provide relief to the purchaser (and remove the collection and remittance obligation from the seller).  While many think the test is easy to apply, there are many complicated twists and turns in the analysis.

In December 2010, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) released GST Memorandum Series 14.4 "Sale of a Business or Part of a Business" as administrative guidance.  This 11 page document will help in the application of section 167 of the Excise Tax Act (Canada). 

However, since there may be a lot on money at stake if you do not interpret the rules properly, you may wish to refer questions to a commodity tax/sales tax specialist if you are still unclear after reading this CRA administrative guidance.  This is my due diligence tip...

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

Most people hire a home inspector to inspect a home before buying a home.  They hire home inspectors to find the problems that they cannot see so that they do not experience large unexpected expenditures after the closing date.

Should businesses (corporations and partners/joint venturers) hire a GST/HST expert to conduct a GST/HST focused review prior to the closing date so that they do not buy GST/HST problems that a Canada Revenue Agency auditor may blame on the buyer?  What I am referring to is due diligence and a private audit of GST/HST books and records.

A GST/HST inspection is prudent if the buyer is buying the shares of a corporation.  The past errors (liabilities) are acquired in a share purchase transaction.  If you find a serious problem with the GST/HST compliance, then a purchase price reduction can be discussed.  The purchase price reduction for the shares may be quantified by way of a pre-closing voluntary disclosure - but that may delay the transaction.  If you do not want to delay the closing of the transaction, an amount of the purchase price may be put in a reserve or escrow account as the voluntary disclosure proceeds.  It is not necessary to conduct a a voluntary disclosure and reserves can be maintained depending what is found in and quantified during the GST/HST inspection.

Similarly, a GST/HST inspection is prudent if the buyer is purchasing a partnership unit or joint venture interest in an existing partnership or joint venture. As discussed with corporations, the buyer would be buying the GST/HST history and the existing problems.

Even if the acquisition is an asset transaction, a GST/HST inspection is prudent.  If the buyer is making offers of employment to existing employees, they will continue to make any mistakes they had been making in their record keeping and reportings. If you would like to stop bad practices, you need to know they exist and take positive steps to teach proper practices.

GST/HST inspections are not usual - yet.  With the implementation of GST/HST in Ontario and British Columbia, the cost of mistakes increased to 13% and 12% respectively, plus additional basis points for interest and penalties.  Depending on the value of the business that is being acquired, there is more money at stake than the cost of replacing a leaky roof or old furnace.

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

Seth Godin, a marketing guru, usually is right on the mark.  In today's post, entitled "The Certainty Premium" he writes, in part:

How much would you pay for an envelope that had a 50% chance of containing $10 and a 50% chance of being empty?

Over time and in bulk, probably $4.99. But certainly not more than $5.

Here's where it gets interesting: how much extra would you pay for a plane that was guaranteed to be always on time, or a surgery that was always guaranteed to work? Suddenly, the same math that helped us value the envelope doesn't work so well. That's because we're often willing to pay a significant premium to avoid risk.

In GST/HST, near certainty may be derived from a ruling from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).  There are two types of requests that can be made to the CRA, GST/HST Rulings Directorate:

1. Advance Rulings; and

2. Interpretations.

An advance ruling requires that the requested provide their name and all relevant facts relating to the request.  The CRA will consider the request, possibly ask questions, and request more documentation before issuing an advance ruling.  This process takes time and the request is well considered (sometimes a very long time).  However, what the taxpayer receives from the CRA is a letter containing their answer that is binding.  This means that the CRA should not issue an assessment against the person who made the request for the ruling if they requester acts in accordance with their advance GST/HST ruling.  In cases where an auditor disagrees or the CRA's administrative position has changed after the CRA provides the advance GST/HST ruling to a requester (and they have not notified the person to whom the ruling was provided of the change), the CRA generally does not assess GST/HST, penalties and interest for the past, but requests that the person abide by the CRA's current position on a going forward basis.  This can save a person from audit stress and having to pay an assessment in the future.

An interpretation is something less than an advance ruling and it is not binding on the CRA.  An interpretation usually involves a general and generic question and can be made on a no-names basis.  The interpretation provides the CRA's current position relating to the facts and topic set out in the request. If a taxpayer has an interpretation and an auditor disagrees or the CRA's position changes, an assessment may be issued against a requester. Usually, if a person has an interpretation letter from the CRA, the CRA will not assess penalties because the person exercised due diligence by requesting an interpretation.  There are cases where the CRA will restrict the audit period to something less than 4 years if their administrative position changed.  CRA auditors exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis.

That being said, if the CRA discovers during an audit that the request for an advance ruling or interpretation does not set out all relevant facts or that the facts were "spun" and not entirely accurate, they may take the position that the ruling or interpretation is void and may issue an assessment against the requester despite the ruling or interpretation.  For this reason, if there is a significant amount that may be assessed if a future audit covers 4 years, then it is wise to use the services of a GST/HST professional who can help you write your ruling request.  In addition, the GST/HST professional can communicate with the CRA, GST/HST Rulings Directorate personnel to determine what information they require to analyze the advance ruling/interpretation request. 

Businesses often do not know what they do not know and are too afraid to ask the CRA out of fear that contact will cause an audit to occur.  Businesses owners may not know what to say and what not to say.  By working with a professional, the business owner may be shielded from the CRA's view or may find out that their advance ruling request may not be granted and that they are doing something wrong.  If the business is doing something wrong, they can make a voluntary disclosure for past mistakes and correct the errors on a going forward basis. Assessment risk may be reduced.

For more information on GST/HST Rulings, please look at GST/HST Memorandum Series 1.4 (September 2009) "Excise and GST/HST Rulings and Interpretation Services".  If you need help in analyzing whether to request an advance GST/HST ruling or an interpretation, please call Cyndee Todgham Cherniak at 416-760-8999.

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

If you would like to find money in your business, you should conduct an internal compliance verification.  You should undertake a review of your internal controls to ensure that you are recovering every cent of GST/HST that you are entitled to recover under the law. I would be surprised if you do not find something you have missed.  Treat the internal review as a treasure hunt with the same determination as a child with a treasure map, you may just find money.

Your review of your internal controls should also look for your failures to charge GST/HST appropriately and your failures to remit GST/HST collected and/or GST/HST that you must self-assess and remit from your own bank account.  It goes without saying that the same holds true for other sales taxes. This is finding money too and, it is a method to save money as the interest and penalties will cost you if a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) auditor comes to visit, conducts an audit and finds your mistakes.

I have a list of places in the books and records of a business where I look for additional amounts that have been missed by a business owner and his/her staff or bookkeeper or accountant. I will not give that list out to anyone - but I use my list that has been created from years of experience (often from helping clients through audits and assessments). 

I will share one tip today. 

Since the implementation of HST, have you taken your purchase invoices and checked to see if you have claimed all of the input tax credits (ITCs) that you can to recover GST/HST paid to your suppliers?  This is a good time to take a good sample of those invoices and check to see if the GST/HST has been recorded properly and whether your internal record keeping is working to permit full recovery.  

First, do you have all the invoices?  Are you missing some of the invoices that you remember paying?   Do you remember a good of a service that was acquired and there isn't an invoice in your sample?  If an invoice is missing, you may not have recorded the input tax credit.  Do you have methods to record GST/HST paid when there wasn't a typical invoice (e.g. pursuant to an agreement of purchase and sale or a commercial lease or a license, etc.). Do you record the GST/HST amount included in each check that yo write?  What about bank drafts, wire transfer and other forms of payment?

When you are look at your invoices, check again whether the suppliers properly invoiced you GST/HST?  Do the invoices issued between May 1, 2010 and June 30, 2010 properly record GST/HST charged during the transition period?  Does the invoice reflect the correct amount of GST/HST?  This is also a great time to analyze whether the invoices (and any other evidence relating to payments of GST/HST) meet the documentary requirements of the Excise Tax Act and regulations - inadequate documentation is the top audit issue and reason why CRA auditors reject ITC claims and issue assessments.  Have you ever inquired what information is necessary (and should be maintained) to satisfy the CRA of your entitledment to claim an input tax credit?

Second, have you recorded the amounts of input tax credits in your records? If so, are there any errors? If not, how can you claim the correct amount of an input tax credit if the amounts are not recorded?  Even if they are recorded in your books and records, have you checked to see that the process actually works so that when you press the button for a calculation, that number is correct?

If your business does not claim full input tax credits, do you claim the correct amount of rebates/refunds of GST/HST (e.g. you are engaged in exempt activities in whole or in part)?  The same two steps discussed above can be used to verify that your internal controls record the GST/HST that you are entitled to claim by way of rebate/refund.

If you find previously unrecovered GST/HST, you may be able to amend your GST/HST return for the period (depending on the reporting period in which the error occurred).   You may be able to claim the input tax credit/rebate/refund on your next GST/HST return.  You may be able to file a refund claim. I cannot tell you how you get your hands on that found money without knowing the facts.

You may undertake an internal review by yourself or you may call in a professional to maximize your recovery - you do not know what you do not know and what you have missed  A small number of lawyers and accountants who understand the GST/HST laws and administrative policies may be called to assist you with this internal controls review process.  Most sales tax lawyers and accountants charge an hourly rate for their services.  There are also sales tax consultants who conduct these types of reviews and they sometimes charge you a percentage of what they find (you split the found money).

Since I am a lawyer, I have to mention that the benefit of using a lawyer is that analysis and report is subject to solicitor-client privilege and cannot be obtained by the CRA unless that privilege has been breached.  Everything you say to a lawyer about your lack of attention to internal controls and mistakes cannot be divulged to the CRA or tax authorities.  A lawyer's files should not be obtained by the CRA if they arrive with a warrant or seizure request.  If the CRA does attempt to seize a lawyer's records, the records/files may be placed under seal and reviewed by a court before the CRA can review them (which allows the lawyer to claim privilege and a judge to decide if the claim is appropriate on a document-by-document basis).

Finally, if you conduct periodic compliance verifications of your internal controls, you may have a due diligence defence if at some future point in time you are audited.  If your review process captures most of your mistakes and you miss one or two items, that can be expected. However, if you miss a lot of your errors, there would be the same question by the auditor as to whether you took care in implementing your GST/HST systems.

Good luck searching for money.  Please let us know if you find any.

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

Harmonized sales tax ("HST") is complicated.  I get asked easy and hard questions every day.  What I am seeing is that many business owners want to be correct on all maters HST, but do not ask the right questions.  A business owner must ask:

• What am I supplying?
• Am I making a single or multiple supply?

Many business owners start with a different question.  Unfortunately, they do not take sufficient time to analyze what they actually supply (or may be seen by a Canada Revenue Agency Auditor to supply) as a first step.  BUT, if you do not know what it is that you are supplying, then you may not property apply other HST rules (such as the place of supply or transition rules).

For example 1: A number of years ago, I had a client tell me that they license computer programs.  I asked to see the licenses that allowed users to use their computer programs.  They looked at me blankly and said none of their customers had signed a license agreement.  When we dug into what they actually supplied, they ran a web-site that allowed persons to access information via the Internet.  They had developed a computer program for their own use in order to run their web-site and process information received from Internet users.  They never gave the Internet users the ability to download this computer program.  The actual deliverable was a list of names and useful information that the Internet user could then use to contact one of the supplied names to acquire an unrelated service from a third party.

This client thought that they provided tangible personal property when in fact they performed a service or provided intangible personal property.

For example 2: Another client is an interior designer.  The interior designer said she provided interior design services.  However, for many clients, the interior designer bought and resold paint, tiles, wall paper, furniture, etc. and chargde a 15%-25% mark-up.  The interior designer actually provided tangible personal property and services.

For example 3: Another client is an exterminator (of pests).  The exterminator thought he performed a valuable service.  In the world of HST, he actually performed a service in respect of real property.

The list of examples could go on and on.  My point is that unless you look at the question of "What Am I Supplying?" from an HST perspective, you may not apply the other HST rules properly.  There are many other HST rules to apply properly.

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

Some individuals register for GST/HST purposes for their business activities.  When "Bob Smith" registers for GST/HST purposes as a sole practitioner or as a partner in a partnership or as the operator of a joint venture or as a trustee of a trust, he may expose himself to assessment risk for failure to collect GST/HST on all supplies.  When Bob Smith has a garage or contents sale, he is making taxable supplies and should be collecting and remitting GST/HST.  In 99.9% of the cases, the registered Bob and Jane Smith's of Ontario (or Canada for that matter) do not realize they must charge GST/HST.

The rest of us who are not registered for GST/HST purposes (in our individual capacity) do not charge GST/HST at garage and content sales because they do not have a reasonable expectation of profit.  As a result, they do not need to voluntarily register for GST/HST purposes (unless they sell goods on EBay and other web-sites and their sales exceed $30,000 per year).

Bob Smith would say that he does not have a reasonable expectation of profit with respect to the sales of the old kitchen appliances, books, clothes, etc. sold at the garage sale.  He is probably correct.  But, since he is already in the GST/HST system because he has a reasonable expectation of profit in his business activities, the collection and remittance obligations arise. 

If you think about it, the rule IS NOT that a sole practitioner/partner/joint venturer/trustee charges GST/HST when the sale is a profitable sale and does not charge GST/HST when the sale is not a profitable sale.  The sole practitioner charges GST/HST on all sales.

Many individuals have registered for GST/HST purposes for a number of reasons.  these registrants should consider the wider ramifications of that registration --- including their personal activities that may give rise to GST/HST collection and remittance obligations.

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

On April 28, 2010, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) issued Headquarter Letter (Ruling) No: 120360 in which it ruled that the taxpayer should be entitled to claim an input tax credit (ITC) for the amount of goods and services tax (GST) (can substitute HST here too) paid on the purchase of the goods for resale that were subsequently stolen from the taxpayer's store.  The taxpayer would be required to meet the other ITC documentary requirements.

In this case, the taxpayer filed a claim for recovery against its insurance and the insurance company denied that portion of the claim that was GST because the insured taxpayer could recover those amounts by other means.  This did not bother the CRA.

This is a fair ruling in the circumstances. 

Other taxpayers should rely on CRA rulings at their own risk as their factual circumstances may be different.  A taxpayer should seek a binding ruling from the CRA if they wish certainty.

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

Service providers should not make a determination of the place of supply for harmonized sales tax (HST) and applicable HST rate once at the beginning and not revist the analysis.  As a technical matter, the legislation requires that service providers make a determination for each billing period because the relevant facts may change from invoice to invoice.  For example, the types of services may change from billing period to billing period, which could affect the application of the HST place of supply rules.  If there is more than one office or home address provided by the client, the location most closely connected with the supply may change from invoice to invoice.

The advice is do not follow the Ronco advice "Set It and Forget It".  Canada Revenue Agency auditors are being trained to look into the details of each invoice and look at changes.

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

I have not located a Canadian goods and services tax (GST) / harmonized sales tax (HST) case in which the Tax Court of Canada has been asked to accept a appellant's Google research. So, from a Canadian perspective, it is not possible to say "yes" or "no" with any degree of certainty. 

That being said, there is a U.S. case of which Canadians should be aware.  In Kenneth D. And Trudi A. Woodard vs. IRS, the United States Tax Court considered whether the Woodwards showed "reasonable cause" (like Canada's exercising due diligence) so that a penalty assessed by an auditor for a mistake would be reversed by the court.  

In Canada and the United States, the taxing authorities should not impose a penalty if the taxpayer exercised due diligence or reasonable cause (care) in their reporting of tax. Often a taxpayer must go to court and demonstrate that he/she took steps to not make an error.

It appears that the United States Tax Court has accepted that using Google is an acceptable step in locating information to make accurate tax reportings.  However, in the case of Woodward, the taxpayers did not keep their research and, therefore, the United States Tax Court could not find in their favour.  The Court said:

Mr. Woodard claims that he relied on information found on unspecified Web sites written by unidentified individuals or organizations,
 

We recognize that petitioner had not worked as an accountant for years before filing the 2004 return, but his accounting degree, M.B.A., and C.P.A. training, no matter how stale, undoubtedly taught him what sources could be relied upon as definitive; such as, for example, the Internal Revenue Code and the income tax regulations, both of which are readily available on the Internet. From the record, it is not clear that he questioned the provenance or accuracy of the information he found through the Google search engine. Without knowing the sources of the information, it is impossible for the Court to determine that those sources were competent to provide tax advice.
Accordingly, we cannot conclude that Mr. Woodard exercised ordinary business care and prudence in selecting and relying upon the information he found on line. As a result, we find that he has not shown reasonable cause for failing to report the distributions from his IRA on the 2004 Federal income tax return. Not having found reasonable cause, we need not consider whether Mr. Woodard acted in good faith. See sec. 6664(c)(1).

I am sharing this case as it may be a good authority to hand to the Tax Court of Canada someday --- especially by persons who have attempted to comply with the HST and who have made mistakes.

The morale of the story is to keep your records.  Save electronic copies of your Google searches and the documents you read and on which you rely.  You may hope that you will not have to read the document again.  But, remember the Woodwards and you may be them someday.  You may make a mistake and have to defend your actions/decisions.  It is always better to have ammunition (that is, paper)  in such a battle with the tax authorities.

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

I would like to share a quote with you from a recent GST case, Arsic v. The Queen.  In this case, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) was pursuing a director of a corporation for the GST debts of the corporation.  In these circumstances, the director may raise the due diligence defence, which prevents the CRA from shifting the corporation's GST liability (plus penalties and interest) to the director.

Justice Diane Campbell wrote:

In the end, I must attempt the difficult task of determining what a reasonably prudent person should have done or would have done in circumstances comparable to those in this appeal.  It remains a question of fact tempered with a good dose of even-handed common sense.  It is always easy to criticize the choices of a taxpayer when armed with the benefit of hindsight."

This quote will be helpful to directors.  The judge is making it clear that the auditor did not use common sense when assessing the director for the liabilities of the corporation. She accepted the due diligence defence and allowed the appeal.  The end result is that the director did not have to pay the assessment relating to the GST debt of the corporation.

More importantly, the quote should help directors.  Directors must ask themselves what would the Court expect a reasonably prudent director to do?  What should I do to show the Court that I tried to prevent the corporation from getting into GST/HST trouble?  I often use the white hat / black hat analogy.  The taxpayer needs to help the Court see that they always were the good guy wearing the white hat.  The director must not wear a black hat and engage in questionable behaviour. In Court, the bad facts may (will likely) come out.

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

I have helped many non-residents of Canada register for goods and services tax (GST) purposes over the years. These GST registered non-residents must apply the HST place of supply rules to their transactions involving Canadian buyers/clients.

In addition, many of these non-resident clients have filed extra-provincial registrations to carry on business in a Canadian province so that they could open a bank account and pay the Receiver General any GST collected. 

These non-resident entities have made two representations to the Government of Canada and/or a provincial government that they are 'carrying on business" in Canada.  Many have done so without considering income tax and/or withholding tax consequences.

The implementation of HST should trigger a closer look at a non-resident's Canadian business activities.  So far, I am close to 100% in finding mistakes that could be or are already very costly.

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

Disbursements have been an issue under the goods and services tax (GST) and will become a more complex issue with harmonized sales tax (HST).  When I speak about disbursements, I am talking additional charges or expenses incurred by the service providers, such as parking, filing fees, photocopies, etc. that are billed to the client with the fees for services.

As a general rule, disbursements take on the same GST/HST character as the underlying supply of services.

In 2004, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)  reissued Policy Statement P-209R "Lawyer's Disbursements" and indicated that they took the position that there are two categories of disbursements that may be found on a lawyer's bill:

1) Expenses/disbursements incurred by the lawyer as agent for the client; and

2) Expenses/disbursements not incurred as agent for the client.

The expenses/disbursements incurred as agent may be passed on to the client without additional GST/HST (however, the service provider should not take an input tax credit and then not charge GST/HST as the GST/HST should be passed to the recipient).

The same two categories apply to other service providers.  However, depending on the nature of the services, it may be that for other service providers expenses are not normally incurred in the context of an agency.  As a result, it is important to understand the CRA's administrative position:

The phrase “incurred as agent” indicates that the disbursement described is generally incurred in a lawyer's capacity as agent for a particular client. As such, no GST/HST is exigible on the subsequent reimbursement by the client. The phrase “not incurred as agent” indicates that the disbursement described is generally incurred otherwise than in a lawyer's capacity as agent for a particular client. As such, GST/HST is exigible on the subsequent reimbursement by the client (to the extent that GST/HST is exigible on the consideration for the service provided by the lawyer to the client). The characterization of each disbursement is based on the application of the principles of agency to a typical transaction involving that disbursement.Policy statement P-182R, Agency was used as the basis for this analysis.

In 2010, there have been two important court cases that provide additional guidance on the issue of disbursements (Merchant Law Group v The President of the Canada Revenue Agency (FCA); Roberge Transport Inc. v. The Queen (TCC).  Both cases give guidance that a court will consider as relevant whether the parties had an agency agreement (or some statement concerning the expenses being incurred as agent) in place to support the arguments that the expenses where incurred in the context of an agency. The Roberge Transport case is important to review because it is written by Justice Steven D'Arcy, who was one of the leading GST lawyers in the country before joining the bench in 2009.

Service providers, therefore, should follow the existing policy statement and add what may be taken from the cases.

There are many complex situations where the HST treatment of disbursements will become relevant.

Example 1:  A service provider pays a filing fee to a municipality in circumstances where the filing fee is exempt for GST/HST purposes.   The service provider may be required to charge HST when it bills the disbursement when the service provider is not an agent for the client.

Example 2: A service provider in an HST province (e.g. Ontario) retains a service provider on a sub-contract basis in a non-HST province (e.g., Manitoba) and pays the service provider's invoice and includes the disbursement on the Ontario service provider's invoice to the client.

Example 3: A trucking company providers trucking services to a Canadian manufacturer and incurs inter-provincial fuel taxes that it invoices the client as a disbursement. If the trucking company is not acting as an agent, there may be HST on the incurred taxes depending on the facts.

The answers re whether HST must be charged in respect of a particular disbursement will depend upon the facts.  I can tell you that businesses need more clarification regarding this subject.

My best advice is to read the Policy Statement on "Agency" and "Lawyer's Disbursements" and clearly state in retainer letters and contracts which expenses and disbursements will be incurred as agent for the client.  The list will depend on the business activities and usual disbursements.  You should seek help compiling the "Incurred as Agent" listing.

In addition, it is better to be consistent in your approach to billing disbursements. A billing policy is helpful and should be provided to all sales and billing staff.  Arguments will have greater persuasive value if it can be shown that a particular type of expense is always treated in a certain manner (usually as incurred as agent in order to not charge GST/HST).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The GST rules (now the HST rules) have historically allowed a supplier (seller) of taxable real property to make a supply to a recipient (purchaser) and not collect GST/HST in respect of the real property if the purchaser is registered for GST/HST purposes and provides a written certification of registration status.  The relevant sections of the Excise Tax Act are subsections 123(1), 221(2) and 228(4).

What happens in these real property transactions is that the purchaser provides the seller a certification at closing and the supplier verifies the purchasers GST/HST registration number with the Canada Revenue Agency (as a due diligence step).  If the certification is verified by the Canada Revenue Agency, the seller does not collect GST/HST from the purchaser at the time of the closing/transfer and the purchaser self-assesses GST/HST on its GST/HST return for the period in which the transaction took place.  On the GST/HST return, the purchaser indicates the amount of GST/HST he/she/it is self-assessing and takes an input tax credit  on the same return to neutralize the cash flow effect. The purchaser also files a GST Form 60 with its GST/HST return.

These certifications are not a prescribed form (that is the CRA has not developed a form to complete) and many lawyers and real property businesses have developed a precedent that they use.  These precedent certifications need to be updated to account for HST.

I would recommend that the new certifications include the following information:

1. The Recipient's (buyer's) correct legal name;
2. The Recipient's GST/HST number;
3. The Recipient's reporting period (not necessary, but helpful to diarize self-assessment deadline);
4. The Recipient's mailing address in the Canada Revenue Agency's records (I have needed this in the past to verify items 1 and 2);
5. The municipal address of the real property (in order to make HST place of supply determination at the time f the self assessment)
6. The transfer value of the real property; and
7. The rate of HST applicable (based on 5 and 6).

The Registrant Real Property Certification should make reference to both GST and HST on a going forward basis so as not to confuse the auditor who wants to raise a big assessment against the parties.

We have prepared such precedent certificates for transactions and will be willing to sell a precedent for a flat rate of $100 (the cost of which can be recoverable).

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

Today is June 28, 2010 and there are only three more days left in pre-HST Ontario/BC.  Those in the service industry (where files are maintained for clients) should bill for services rendered before July 1, 2010.  Services rendered before July 1, 2010 are not subject to harmonized sales tax ("HST").  In addition, many services are not subject to Ontario retail sales tax ("ORST") - only "taxable services" as defined in the Retail Sales Tax Act (Ontario) are subject to ORST in Ontario.

I offer this advice to help not confuse an auditor - close any dormant files on Monday-Wednesday  (June 28-30, 2010) (pre-HST period).  Send those files to records (and you will not have to pay HST on the service fee of the moving company if the service is performed before July 1).  Hire a temporary worker to provide assistance in the pre-HST period and save the HST.  Both GST and HST are payable of the services provided by temporary employees services.  If your employee (that is, he or she is on your payroll and is not a third party service provider or employed by a third party service provider) provides the assistance in closing the files in the computerized system and putting the files in boxes, then his/her employment related services are not subject to wither GST/HST.

You will both clean your office and save the HST at the same time.  More importantly, you will have documentation to show that the files were closed prior to HST.  You will have additional proof to give an auditor that you took steps to make a clear division for the purposes of the application of the HST transition rules. The easier you make it for the auditor, the easier you make it for yourself.

In addition, if that client comes back and needs more work performed by you post-HST, you can open a new file, gather the new information for your HST decision tree and start fresh (and start charging HST where applicable).

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

After a business realizes that harmonized sales tax (HST) is coming and that changes are required to systems and documentation, the business must figure out what is necessary to ensure compliance.  The government publications help, but do not give enough information to make sure that businesses know what they must do to comply.

It is not sufficient for the Ontario Ministry of Revenue to announce that HST is 13%, HST is payable and collectible where GST is payable and collectible (except if a point of sale rebate is permitted), the implementation day is July 1, 2010, there are transition rules and place of supply rules and most businesses should stop charging Ontario retail sales tax on July 1.  What is missing is effective communication on what steps businesses should take to prepare.  This trial and error approach is costly for businesses - Businesses should try to comply and government will tell them where the mistakes were made by assessing GST/HST, interest and/or penalties.

The onus (and I do not mean legal onus or burden of proof) is on suppliers (sellers/retailers) and recipients (buyers/[purchasers) to figure out the legal requirements and be perfect in their implementation of the law (to the extend it is currently passed) and administrative statements (to the extent they are written and accurately reflect the written or unwritten law) and place of supply rules (which have not been passed by way of law or promulgated by way of regulation yet).  In other words, the communication from government to businesses is insufficient to ensure compliance.

In addition, businesses must effectively communicate within the organization in order to ensure compliance.  Someone must do their best to understand the HST rules and communicate the rules within the organization so that the proper system changes are made.  If the tax department/Chief Financial Officer does not discuss HST implementation with the sales department, the sales persons might not know what is subject to HST and what is not.  The sales persons may not understand when an invoice should include HST and when HST is not payable.  The sales persons might not know that they must charge HST on sales made in May and June if delivery occurs after July 1, 2010.

In addition, the computerized systems cannot change themselves.  Usually there is the information technology (IT) guru within an organization that must write computer source code or undertake configurations to ensure that HST is charged on invoices.  If there is not effective communication with the IT guru about what changes need to be made to electronic documents and computerized systems to record HST, the computers may be of little help in fulfilling their important role(s).

In addition, the IT guru may have to make adjustments to accounting systems so that the record keeping/ accounting programs track the GST and HST properly.  The computer system will be a useful tool to ensure GST and HST collected is added / reported correctly when GST/HST Returns must be completed and filed electronically (or in paper format).  The computer system will be a central tool in recording and reporting input tax credits, rebates, refund and restricted input tax credits.  If the IT guru does not receive clear instructions, he/she might not make all the necessary changes.

Effective compliance often includes an internal audit or monitoring of the systems to ensure that accurate information is communicated.  If no one has this role / function within their job description, the job might not be performed.

If problems are discovered, effective communication is necessary to make new and further adjustments to the system.  For example, if a September 1, 2010 invoice to the Government of Ontario did not include GST and HST (because prior to HST implementation neither taxes were charged), whoever discovers the problem will need to communicate the mistake internally within the organization so that the sales people, the IT guru, human resources, the tax department or CFO and others make the necessary changes.  Someone will also need to contact the Government of Ontario and send the invoice for the GST/HST or amended invoice including GST/HST.

Finally, I have to point out that effective communication extends to lawyers, accountants, customs brokers and other service providers.  A business will get incorrect/incomplete answers to questions if there is ineffective communication to outside service providers.  If you are going to rely on a service provider's help, you need to communicate all the relevant facts and instructions - otherwise the advice or services that you expect to be provided to you may not be provided.

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