Taxpayer blames $500K misstep on accountant, however CRA doesn’t

Article content material

If you happen to’re a enterprise proprietor whose tax state of affairs is considerably complicated, likelihood is you rent an accountant to arrange your private and company tax returns.

However beware that you’re nonetheless finally liable for ensuring your taxes are performed accurately and all of your revenue is totally reported, and also you gained’t be capable of put the blame in your accountant ought to the Canada Income Company come knocking.

Article content material

Take the latest Federal Courtroom of Attraction case, determined in June 2024, involving a taxpayer who was interesting a 2023 determination of the Tax Courtroom. The taxpayer operated a number of companies, together with a grocery retailer, by way of varied firms. One among these firms had not filed any revenue tax returns for a number of tax years.

From 2005 by way of 2009, the company reported gross sales of between $2.2 million and $2.9 million, leading to gross earnings of between $200,000 and $400,000 yearly. The CRA carried out a financial institution deposit evaluation of the company in addition to the non-public joint financial institution accounts of the taxpayer and his partner.

The evaluation confirmed a complete of $512,211 of shareholder appropriations, being cash taken from the enterprise and transferred to private title, that was not included within the taxpayer’s revenue for the years from 2006 by way of 2009.

Each the taxpayer and the CRA agreed that the company had accurately calculated the quantity of the taxpayer’s unreported revenue, however the dispute in tax court docket was whether or not the CRA was nonetheless capable of assess the taxpayer for these years, which ordinarily can be thought-about to be “statute barred” and whether or not gross negligence penalties have been relevant.

Article content material

Article content material

Beneath the Earnings Tax Act, the CRA is usually 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.”

The taxpayer testified that his accountant on the time had suggested him to open a “second” checking account and to make deposits of money gross sales into his private account and that of his partner “to keep away from ‘some’ costs.” Moreover, the taxpayer acknowledged that monies from the company have been immediately deposited into his private financial institution accounts.

The taxpayer stated he used to take his enterprise information, akin to invoices, money register slips and mail, to his accountant each two to a few months, for an estimated complete of 30 occasions over the course of the related taxation years. He stated his accountant additionally filed his private returns, however that “he by no means signed them.” He additionally claimed he “didn’t know the place the numbers for the revenue reported got here from.”

The taxpayer supported a household of six in the course of the related taxation years, but the entire revenue reported by him and his spouse on their returns was clearly inadequate to pay the household’s residing bills, together with mortgage funds on the household dwelling bought in 2006.

Article content material

The tax court docket choose stated that whereas the taxpayer could not have had refined information of the tax system, he had been submitting his revenue tax returns since his very first job in 1995, which was a full decade previous to the taxation years underneath assessment. He was additionally a shareholder of three firms and a director of two, together with the company that ran a “very profitable grocery enterprise.”

The taxpayer finally acknowledged that his revenue for the related taxation years was “considerably underreported” and that he had made no inquiries at any time to substantiate the appropriateness of the quantities being reported. He additionally acknowledged that his accountant advised he open one other checking account to keep away from “costs.”

The taxpayer testified that he knew “little or no about taxes” and “merely relied on his accountant to arrange the returns primarily based on the monetary data he had supplied.” He advised that the misrepresentation within the returns was the fault of the accountant, not himself.

The tax court docket decided it was not ample to easily depend on the accountant with out asking any questions. “(The taxpayer) can not merely throw his fingers up and say that he blindly relied on his accountant, with out making any try at in search of a greater understanding of his obligations and with out making any effort to confirm the accuracy of the revenue reported in his revenue tax returns,” the choose stated.

Article content material

In any case, the taxpayer was a really profitable enterprise proprietor in Canada who had beforehand graduated from highschool and studied physics for 2 years at college in his dwelling nation abroad. Moreover, the tax court docket stated the quantity of revenue that was not reported far exceeded the revenue that was reported. Within the 4 years underneath assessment, the entire unreported revenue was greater than $500,000, however the revenue really reported on his tax returns throughout that interval was lower than $40,000.

The tax court docket dismissed the attraction and stated the assessments weren’t statute barred as a result of the taxpayer’s failure to incorporate the shareholder appropriations in his revenue was “a misrepresentation resulting from carelessness or neglect,” including that the taxpayer “didn’t train affordable care to report the right quantity of revenue.”

The decrease court docket additionally stated the gross negligence penalties have been justified as a result of the taxpayer’s conduct “fell markedly under what can be anticipated of an inexpensive particular person in his circumstances.”

Article content material

The taxpayer appealed the decrease court docket’s determination to the Federal Courtroom of Attraction, which heard the case in Toronto on June 7. In a brief four-page determination delivered orally from the bench, the three-judge appellate panel unanimously concluded that the tax court docket’s conclusion was properly supported by the info, and there was no purpose for it to intervene. The court docket, subsequently, dismissed the attraction and awarded the crown prices.

Jamie Golombek, FCPA, FCA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Property Planning with CIBC Non-public Wealth in Toronto. Jamie.Golombek@cibc.com.

If you happen to preferred this story, join extra within the FP Investor e-newsletter.

Bookmark our web site and assist our journalism: Don’t miss the enterprise information it’s worthwhile to know — add financialpost.com to your bookmarks and join our newsletters right here.

Article content material