Jamie Golombek: A day dealer, a health membership proprietor and an injured employee all had their appeals rejected by the court docket
Critiques and suggestions are unbiased and merchandise are independently chosen. Postmedia could earn an affiliate fee from purchases made by means of hyperlinks on this web page.
Article content material
It’s been almost 5 years since COVID-19 advantages had been launched, but almost each week the federal court docket continues to listen to circumstances introduced by people who obtained advantages that, upon subsequent scrutiny by the Canada Income Company, they weren’t certified to obtain. Right here’s a trio of current such circumstances determined over the previous month that offers us a window into the sorts of claims taxpayers made, and why they’re being denied.
Commercial 2
Article content material
Article content material
Article content material
The day dealer
The primary case concerned a day dealer, who was in federal court docket not too long ago attempting to hold on to her Canada Restoration Profit (CRB). As a reminder, the CRB changed the Canada Emergency Response Profit (CERB), each of which had been obtainable to eligible staff and self-employed staff who suffered a lack of earnings because of the pandemic. The CRB’s eligibility standards had been just like the CERB in that they required, amongst different issues, that the person had earned a minimum of $5,000 in (self-)employment earnings in 2019, 2020 or throughout the 12 months previous the date of their utility, and that they ceased working as a result of COVID-19.
The self-employed day dealer stopped working in April 2019 to look after her members of the family. She utilized for a profit beneath the CRB program, however her eligibility was questioned by the CRA.
The taxpayer defined that she ceased day buying and selling because of the illness of her mom, her sister, and her canine. The taxpayer needed to journey to a different metropolis to take care of her mom. In April 2019 she needed to euthanize her canine. Each her mom and sister finally died. The taxpayer additional famous that she contracted COVID-19 in March 2020, January 2021, and October 2022.
Prime Tales
Article content material
Commercial 3
Article content material
The decide was sympathetic, acknowledging the taxpayer’s tragic private circumstances, however nonetheless discovered the CRA’s choice to disclaim her the advantages was “affordable.” The CRA famous that the taxpayer did endure a discount in earnings when she stopped day buying and selling, however this was in April 2019, which was 11 months previous to the beginning of the pandemic. Thus it was affordable for the CRA to conclude that the explanation the taxpayer stopped working was unrelated to COVID-19.
The health membership proprietor
The second case concerned a taxpayer who opened a health facility in August 2019. As a way to get his enterprise off the bottom, he didn’t pay himself a wage till 2020. However, due to government-imposed restrictions throughout the pandemic, the taxpayer was pressured to shut his facility for sure durations. He says that the enterprise was closed for 13 months throughout a 24-month interval. Regardless of being closed, nevertheless, the enterprise continued to incur mounted prices, together with hire and utilities. Whereas the taxpayer tried to search out different employment throughout this era, he was unable to take action as a result of different service-related industries had been additionally experiencing slowdowns and closures.
Commercial 4
Article content material
The taxpayer utilized for the CRB for 27 two-week profit durations however the CRA subsequently suggested him that he was solely eligible for 15 of those durations as a result of he had not skilled a 50 per cent discount in his common weekly earnings throughout the related durations, based mostly on the earnings he had reported for the 2019 and 2020 calendar years.
The taxpayer went to court docket in search of a judicial assessment of the CRA’s choice to disclaim him advantages. He argued that he was pressured to close down his enterprise due to government-imposed lockdowns, and that it was unreasonable for the CRA to not take this into consideration in calculating his drop in earnings over the prior 12 months. As he defined, “If the months he was pressured to shut weren’t included, he can be eligible for the CRB advantages for your complete interval he claimed them.”
As in all such advantages circumstances, the federal court docket decide’s position is to find out whether or not the CRA officer’s choice was affordable. Whereas the taxpayer argued that the standards ought to be completely different to mirror the fact of small enterprise startups, and to bear in mind durations when earnings was misplaced as a result of pandemic lockdowns, the decide defined that each of those points might have been taken into consideration by Parliament and mirrored within the CRB Act, both by adopting completely different guidelines or giving CRA officers extra discretion. As an alternative, Parliament adopted the principles as set out within the laws and gave CRA officers nearly no discretion in making use of them. In different phrases, the CRA officer had no selection however to use the standards set out within the legislation, which the taxpayer merely didn’t meet.
Commercial 5
Article content material
The decide due to this fact decided that the CRA’s choice to disclaim the opposite 12 durations of advantages was affordable.
The injured employee
The third case concerned a taxpayer who misplaced his job in 2017 as a result of a office accident, and was supposed to begin working once more starting in November 2019. He started in search of employment that month, however was not employed when the pandemic started in March 2020. In consequence, the one earnings the taxpayer obtained in 2019 and 2020 got here from T5007 slips issued by the Authorities of Quebec for staff’ compensation advantages, particularly $18,366 in 2019, and $9,577 in 2020.
Beneficial from Editorial
The taxpayer utilized for the CERB, which was later challenged by the CRA as a result of he didn’t meet the correct standards. Whereas the taxpayer acknowledged that he didn’t “cease working” since he was not working when the pandemic started, he argued that the CRA officer ought to have nonetheless thought of that he was searching for work, and due to this fact ought to be eligible for advantages.
The decide disagreed, noting that there was no help for this place, and thus the CRA officer’s choice to disclaim the taxpayer COVID advantages was affordable since he didn’t meet the legislative necessities, particularly that he stopped working for causes associated to COVID, and that he had a minimum of $5,000 of (self-)employment earnings.
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.
Should you favored this story, join extra within the FP Investor publication.
Bookmark our web site and help our journalism: Don’t miss the enterprise information it’s good to know — add financialpost.com to your bookmarks and join our newsletters right here.
Article content material
