Jamie Golombek: The case of a retired healthcare employee who acquired reassessed twice by the CRA, years later than regular, is a cautionary story
Opinions and suggestions are unbiased and merchandise are independently chosen. Postmedia might earn an affiliate fee from purchases made by way of hyperlinks on this web page.
Article content material
Many Canadians will doubtless agree that our tax system is overly complicated, which is why tens of millions rent an accountant or tax skilled to arrange their tax returns annually. However, simply since you rent a professional to arrange your return, doesn’t imply you’re not absolutely accountable — and finally liable — for the knowledge contained inside it.
Take this latest Tax Courtroom determination, determined in early October, involving a taxpayer who was reassessed by the Canada Income Company (CRA) past the traditional reassessment interval for her 2012 and 2013 tax returns. Below the Revenue Tax Act, the CRA is mostly prohibited from reassessing a person taxpayer greater than three years after the unique reassessment, until it may be proven that the taxpayer made “a false assertion attributable to misrepresentation arising from carelessness, neglect or wilful default.”
Commercial 2
Article content material
Returns past the traditional reassessment interval are thought of to be “statute barred.”
The taxpayer retired after many years working in senior care houses, initially as a healthcare aide, and finally as a professional private assist employee. She grew up in Jamaica and had a Grade 6 degree training. She had all the time employed an expert tax preparer to finish her annual revenue tax returns as she did “not really feel sufficiently educated of tax issues” to correctly put together her personal returns.
Round 2009, a number of the taxpayer’s work colleagues really helpful she begin utilizing a sure tax preparer for her returns, as he had ready returns for a lot of of them. Because of their suggestions, the taxpayer engaged this tax preparer’s providers for a number of years, together with for each her 2012 and 2013 private tax returns.
Round 2016, the taxpayer realized that various this tax preparer’s purchasers, together with a few of her co-workers, had been having hassle with the CRA with reference to their tax filings. The taxpayer didn’t need any hassle, so she promptly stopped utilizing this specific tax preparer going ahead. It seems that the tax preparer was concerned in making “unsubstantiated claims,” on taxpayer returns, and in addition solid receipts to decrease his purchasers’ taxes.
High Tales
Article content material
Commercial 3
Article content material
The taxpayer’s 2012 and 2013 tax returns had been initially assessed on Nov. 12, 2013, and Nov. 10, 2014, respectively. The three-year regular reassessment intervals for her 2012 and 2013 taxation years expired on Nov. 12, 2016, and Nov. 10, 2017, respectively. Each years’ returns ought to have been thought of statute barred.
However, on March 12, 2019, the CRA reassessed the taxpayer for each years, alleging that she had “made misrepresentations which are attributable to neglect, carelessness or wilful default or fraud … when she claimed … disallowed rental bills/losses, employment bills and charitable deductions.”
The CRA claimed that the taxpayer’s “non-review of her returns earlier than signing” was proof supporting that the taxpayer made misrepresentations in her tax returns that had been “attributable to neglect on her half.” In cross-examination, when the taxpayer was requested, “Did you evaluation your 2012 tax submitting earlier than it was submitted to Canada Income Company?” She answered, “No. (My tax preparer) does it on his laptop … he places them collectively, and he put somewhat X, and he mentioned, ‘Signal your identify right here.’ … as a result of if I take a look at it, I wouldn’t perceive something anyway.”
Commercial 4
Article content material
The taxpayer had claimed rental losses of $7,862 (2012) and $8,165 (2013), based mostly on her renting out a portion of her principal residence, employment bills of $8,936 (2012) and $6,452 (2013), regarding her use of her automobile for work, and non-refundable tax credit in respect of charitable donations of $2,660 (2012) and $2,240 (2013) that she made to her church.
On the trial, the CRA conceded that the taxpayer did, certainly, make the charitable donations to her church as claimed in her 2012 and 2013 returns, and that funds of sure family bills, together with property tax, cable and web, utilities and insurance coverage had been certainly paid by the taxpayer.
However within the taxpayer’s 2012 return, she claimed $2,825 for renovations executed in her basement. However when requested if she incurred that expense, the taxpayer responded “I didn’t inform him (i.e., the tax preparer) that.” The choose remarked that the taxpayer “would have acknowledged this as a fallacious assertion had she reviewed her 2012 return earlier than signing it, and letting it’s submitted.”
As well as, in each her 2012 and 2013 returns, automobile mileage was reported as an employment expense. The taxpayer testified that the mileage figures had been her tax preparer’s figures not hers. In each her 2012 and 2013 tax returns, she is proven as stating that every one (100 per cent) of her whole kilometres pushed in her automotive for the 12 months had been “to earn employment revenue.” The choose discovered it to be “extremely questionable” that the taxpayer by no means drove her automobile at the very least a bit for private functions, resembling to go to household or pals, to attend church, or to buy groceries.
Commercial 5
Article content material
Prior authorized circumstances discovered that neglect refers to “an absence of affordable care,” and the Tax Courtroom has beforehand discovered that “a failure to evaluation a tax return earlier than signing it might represent neglect or carelessness.”
Consequently, the choose concluded that the false renovation, together with the 100 per cent mileage declare had been “misrepresentations” in each of the taxpayer’s 2012 and 2013 returns, and that they had been attributable to neglect on the a part of the taxpayer, “the neglect being her not having reviewed both of the topic returns earlier than signing and submitting.”
Really helpful from Editorial
Thus the choose concluded that the 2 returns weren’t statute-barred and might be reassessed by the CRA past the traditional reassessment interval. Accordingly, the 2 appealed reassessments had been referred again to the CRA to permit the charitable donation credit, in addition to a number of the bills paid for the rental property, however the inappropriate bills claimed had been disallowed.
Jamie Golombek, FCPA, FCA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Property Planning with CIBC Personal Wealth in Toronto. Jamie.Golombek@cibc.com.
Should you appreciated this story, join extra within the FP Investor e-newsletter.
Bookmark our web site and assist our journalism: Don’t miss the enterprise information you’ll want to know — add financialpost.com to your bookmarks and join our newsletters right here.
Article content material