SimpsonWigle Law LLP Tax News

The CRA website now includes a post on the new method for keeping track of motor vehicle expenses. (more…)

I’ve just published a permanent page to my blog on voluntary disclosures.

In Suffolk v. The Queen, 2010 TCC 295 (an informal procedure case), the Court undertook an interesting review of the caselaw relating to the validity of notices of assessment that contain errors and the form required for a valid notice of assessment. The short story is as follows:

[17] Contrary to the position taken by the Appellant, the Federal Court of Appeal in Stephens v. The Queen [[1988] DTC 1170 at 1171] has held that there is no prescribed form for a notice of assessment issued under the Act:

Subsection 152(2) requires the Minister to “send a notice of assessment” to the taxpayer. Nowhere in the Act do we find prescriptions relating to the form of that notice. It follows, in our view, that the form of the notice does not matter and that the subsection merely requires that the notice be expressed in terms that will clearly make the taxpayer aware of the assessment made by the Minister.

…

The Income Tax Act in numerous places requires interest to be paid, either by the taxpayer or the Minister, on certain overdue amounts. The rate applicable is computed by reference to the “prescribed rate”. The Act also provides for calculating certain kinds of benefits by reference to that same rate. The rate fluctuates each calendar quarter. Usually, the CRA publishes the rate on its website well in advance of each quarter. For some reason, however, the CRA has still not published the rate for 2010 Q3. What is a poor tax adviser to do? (more…)

The CRA is huffing and puffing to reassure Canadians “that the minority of tax preparers and promoters who try to make money at the expense of Canadian taxpayers are not getting away with it”.

Granted, my experience does not represent a representative sample; but what I’ve seen of crooked preparers and promoters suggests they have little to fear. The CRA is great at chasing the victims—the easy targets—but not so great at going after the root cause of the problem.

It’s not often that a CRA audit makes headlines: Canada Revenue probe focuses on some RBC DS clients.

The CRA is attempting to hunt down store owners who install software that “suppresses” records of cash sales made through a cash register. Maybe that’s an argument for making a voluntary disclosure now. Visit the taxman before he visits you.

In a post I wrote about a year ago, I complained about the CRA’s then-recent pronouncements on control premiums. The CRA, at the most recent Canadian Tax Foundation BC Conference, recanted this position, at least in part, as follows: (more…)

The so-called “civil penalties” in section 163.2 of the Income Tax Act (Canada) have been with us since 2000. We learned today that the CRA has imposed the penalties in 24 cases to date and that it is considering whether to impose the penalties in another 100 cases.

Unfortunately, with the experience I have working with the CRA, it is only too easy for me to imagine how this might happen: ‘Revenue Canada refuses to pay for million-dollar mistake‘. Wow.