The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) Knows Who Cheats on their Taxes!

Are you on the Canada Revenue Agencies radar?  How about on the CRA’s Audit Radar?  Have you been “flagged”?

Have you ever wondered how the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) decides who to audit?  Are there red flags?  Or does the CRA know how you operate your business which makes you more or less likely to be audited?

Here is the answer that you might be looking for;

The CRA knows who Cheats on their Taxes!

Do you fit their profile?

Are you at risk?

First, some background.

While I was still working at the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), we released the results of a study that was put together to profile what kind of person poses the most risk for the CRA’s collections and audit groups.

The CRA spent a lot of time going through the main accounts; personal tax, payroll, GST/HST, and Corporate Tax, and we looked at who filed on time, who filed late (and how late they filed), and who was regularly compliant, and who needed a follow up verification audit, and what the result of those audits were.

This study focused on Tax Compliance, specifically;

  • Percentage of Taxpayers who accurately reported income and expenses (95%)
  • Percentage of Taxpayers who file on time (93%)
  • Percentage of Taxpayers who made payments on time with their filing (91%).

When it comes to reporting compliance or honestly reporting all your income and/or expenses, this study found that males are more likely to underreport their tax owing than females.

The study also found that underreporting is highest among taxpayers aged 35 to 54 and lowest among taxpayers under 35.

Underreporting of tax was also lowest for taxpayers who are married and highest for those who are separated, with single taxpayers somewhere in between.

Not surprisingly, underreporting of tax is higher among taxpayers whose main source of income is either capital gains or self-employment income versus taxpayers whose main source of income is wages, where most of the tax is withheld at source by the employer.

So who is on the CRA’s radar?

The prime candidates for the CRA to audit, or perform a desk review of expenses, are the separated or divorced males between the ages of 35-54 years old.

Do you fall into that category?

If so, know that the CRA is keeping one eye on you and the other on what you report and when it is reported.

Contact us at inTAXicating, and let us help you ensure that you remain compliant, and ensure that you have the knowledge necessary to organize your records so that you can quickly and easily get through a CRA audit.

EXAMPLE:

Here is an example of a case where the CRA used the criteria identified earlier to quickly descend on a taxpayer who fell behind in his filing and remitting duties.

Case: Tax Cheat?  Or Disorganized Business Owner?

I was approached by a business owner who ran very loosely with his books and records.  He kept a box of receipts and while most of the business receipts made the box, many got lost along the way.  Additionally, this business owner charged business expenses on his personal credit card, and personal expenses on his business card.  He travelled quite a lot for work, and he posted a lot of content on social media, but he failed to keep a thorough and accurate log documenting his personal versus business travel.

Additionally, because he was always on the go, had no time to review the details of the tax side of his business.  He had money in his business bank account, then he knew he was earning money.  At year-end, he would bring his half-completed records and his shoebox to his accountant for the preparation of his returns.

In June he would receive a refund.

A series of events, however, changed his life forever.

  1. His accountant began to get busy
  2. As a result, he was late getting payroll figures, and was late making the payroll remittance
  3. Then the GST/HST numbers were delayed, so that filing was late
  4. His personal tax filings were delayed
  5. His business tax filing was delayed.
  6. His business made money.
  7. While all of this was going on – he continued to send his info to the CA, and pay the CA’s invoices.  He would get the odd notice from the CRA and send it to his accountant to “take care of”.

This is very typical and a common occurence.

What he didn’t know was that everything was not okay.

One day a CRA field officer showed up to discuss his non-compliance and to arrange a payroll audit because the company was 6-months behind on remittances.  There was also a balance owing to the CRA of over $35,000.

Shocked, he contacted his CA who said that she would look into it, that it was going to take some time and she felt the CRA was completely wrong.

Convinced that the accountant was right, the business owner went back to work, and the accountant was going to find the error and fix the problem.

Only problem that he didn’t know was that there was no “error”.  The balance owing to the CRA was legitimate.  By filing late over that 6-month period, the accountant had amassed a significant balance due to late filing penalties and the balance was jumping by leaps and bounds as a result of the 10% interest the CRA charges on outstanding balances (compounding daily).

Then one day he received a call from one of his main suppliers who was concenred because not only did he cheque bounce, but there was a CRA officer there earlier in the day asking questions.

He contacted his accountant.

She appeared stunned and said that she would call the CRA and fix it.

She was just buying time.

A week later, the garnishment was still on the account, interest was accruing, and the accountant was telling stories of the CRA being unfair, and mean, and not listening or returning calls.

Frustrated and panicked that he might have to close his business without a bank account, he contacted his CA and asked for his books and records.

She refused.  Realizing that this was the end of the relationship with her client, she told him that she had done a lot of work with the CRA and she demanded payment before she would give up his information.

He refused to pay – how could he?  He had no access to his bank account and the CRA had taken all of his funds.

In fact, it took him 8-months and a small claims court date for this process to resolve itself.  She took him to court for unpaid work, and thankfully, the judge was wise to this CA and her practices and awarded the client his books and records in return for payment of the work actually completed, not the entire invoice.

The damage was done.  The business was also close to being done.

The CRA doesn’t care about the reasons why someone becomes non-compliant – they look at the business, the owner, and then set their course to fix it.

The fact that this business owner fit the category did not help him at all, as the CRA quickly and aggressively went after every asset that he had, raised assessments for the missing payroll and GST/HST figures, and sent Requirements to Pay to his business bank account, contacted his receivables (clients) and quickly moved to raise director’s liability so they could go after his personal assets.

Conclusion

Running a business is difficult.

Running a business without a business bank account is also difficult.

Running a business without a bank account, after the CRA notified your clients that you owe considerable amounts of tax money is next to impossible.

What killed this business was a combination of bad accounting, bad advice, lies, deception and some really bad luck.

The reality is that many, many businesses and individuals have this experience on a daily basis.  It is next to impossible for the CRA to determine if the information being told to them is legitimate or a made up story – but when the owner of the business is a perfect fit for commiting tax fraud – the CRA takes notice.

Could this have been fixed?  Of course.

If you owe money to the CRA, or if you have fallen behind on compliance, or if you suspect that your tax advisor is giving you bad advice, contact us now.  At inTAXicating, we’ll look at the facts, and help you run your business while we work on solving the problem.

Visit our website @ www.intaxicating.ca.

Send us an email to: Info@intaxicating.ca

 

 

Advertisements

Changes to the CRA’s RC59 Business Authorization Form

The Canada Revenue Agency has announced to tax preparers and representatives that if they wish to have online access to a business client’s tax information after May 15, 2017 they will have to complete the authorization request in the Represent a Client section on the CRA web site.

In order to do this, tax representatives have to log into Represent a Client and select “Review and update” from the Welcome page.  They then select “Authorization request” at the bottom of the “Manage clients” tab and follow the instructions.

Once the request is complete, tax representatives will need to print the signature page for their client to sign. Once it is signed, a scanned copy of the document may be sent to the CRA using its submit documents feature.

Using this method will allow tax professionals to gain access to their business clients’ information in five days or less instead of the 15 days it currently takes with form RC59.

If, however, you still prefer your current process, you can still use form RC59 to request access to your business clients’ information by telephone or mail.

And if you need to have authorization in less that 5 days, you should reach out to us here at inTAXicating, because with almost 11-years’ experience working in the CRA’s Collections department, we know how to get that authorization in the hands of someone in minutes!

Follow us on Twitter @inTAXicating.

Follow us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/intaxicating

Follow us at our website; http://www.intaxicating.ca

Send us an email: info@intaxicating.ca

Or leave us a comment anywhere else!

Changes to the CRA’s RC59 Business Consent Form (For Online Access) Coming in May 2017

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has announced on their website that there are changes coming to the RC59 Business Consent form.  This form is completed by a taxpayer who has business accounts or by businesses who wish to have a representative contact the CRA on their behalf.

Without having this form signed and dated, the CRA will not speak to the representative.

These changes are expected to be law in May of 2017.

These laws apply to representatives who use the RC59, Business Consent, to get online access to their business clients’ information in Represent a Client.

  1. After May 15, to request online access to tax information for a business, you will need to complete the authorization request in Represent a Client. Form RC59 will no longer be used to authorize online access.

    To complete an authorization request:

    1. Log into Represent a Client.
    2. From the Welcome page, select “Review and update.”
    3. Select “Authorization request” at the bottom of the “Manage clients” tab and follow the instructions.
    4. Print the signature page for your client to sign.

    Scan and send the signed copy of the signature page to the CRA using Submit documents.

  2. When you use Represent a Client, you’ll have access to your business clients’ information in five days or less instead of the 15 days it takes today with form RC59.
    You can also see which business clients have authorized you and if the authorizations expire by selecting “Businesses that have authorized this business (or RepID)” under the “Manage clients” tab.
  3. What if I don’t use Represent a Client?
    If you still prefer your current process, you can still use form RC59 to request access to your business clients’ information by telephone or mail.

 

Back from vacation and catching up! How we can help – details included.

Just wanted to drop a quick note to all of you who called, emailed and hit me up on the blog or on social media that we’re back to work and trying to get to everyone as soon as possible.

If anyone has an urgent matter, please send an email to info@intaxicating.ca, in the subject line, please write “urgent” and that will be the top priority.

For new readers of this blog or who are seeing this blog through our website, here is what you need to know!

inTAXicating is a Canadian tax consulting business which provides solutions to Canadian Tax problems predominantly related to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), but not limited to the CRA.

With over 20-years experience in Canadian Tax (throw in some IRS tax, FATCA, Revenu Quebec, Cross-border matters and WSIB) combined with over 10-years working in the CRA in their collections division, you have the experience and expertise that no-one else can boast to have.

Our model is simple! Give you the truth based on the facts.

You get a free consultation and if it is determined that you can handle it best, or if your questions are quickly answered, then you are on your way.

If there are more complex matters which may eventually require greater expertise, then you have the option to handle you tax matters up to that point and then hand it over, or you may wish to hand it over right away…

It’s your taxes and you need to know what is being done and how to properly handle them going forward.

There are no magical cures for tax problems which took years and years to grow, so if anyone promises you a magic bullet, proceed with caution.

inTAXicating also believes that everyone who earns money needs to pay their taxes, however, they should pay what they owe, and in circumstances where there is no ability to pay, the government should understand that and give you a break.

No questions are bad questions.

I do not believe in the “natural person” being exempt from taxes because the CRA does not believe it, but I have spoken to many, many “de-taxers” and enjoy the conversations and helping them through the CRA’s prosecutions.

We specialize in all matters relating to CRA collections, specifically Directors Liability, Taxpayers Relief, s160 assessments, liens, and garnishments, RTP’s.

We provide audit representation, accounting (through a CA), as well as presenting the options to solve all tax matters including the ugliest and most complex tax matters. The messier the better!

In short, we want to help.

15 minute Consultation / responding to questions via email – free
Meeting – $250 plus HST (one hour meeting – detailed summary and recommended plan of action included)
Engagement – either hourly @ $250/hour or a fixed fee depending on the complexity and amount of work involved.
Accounting – best rates possible also related to the amount of work involved.

We try to stick to this model as best as humanly possible because it’s your money and you work hard for it, so you should not have to throw it away.

info@intaxicating.ca

inTAXicating Is 6-Years-Old! Happy Anniversary. Let’s Share Links!

I received a surprising message from WordPress on Sunday, September 21st that this blog, inTAXicating,has celebrated it’s 6th anniversary!

Time flies!

Happy Anniversary inTAXicating.keep-calm-and-happy-6th-anniversary-1

That means it has been 6-years since I have been posting suggestions, tips, and recommendations surrounding the ins and outs of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), the IRS, Revenu Quebec and the WSIB.  I have written about these government organizations based on my practical work experience at the CRA and in private industry working closely with all of them.

I have posted some great stories and have so many more to come!

Compliance, Collections, Cross-Border issues, FATCA, Assessments, Liens, Director’s Liability, Audits, Negotiations, Accounting… I’ve done it all, and I’ve shared a lot of inside information that no one else hears about, or knows about.  Having all of this knowledge and wanting to share it is the driving reason behind maintaining this blog, and opening up a tax solutions business at www.intaxicating.ca.

I am also always looking for great Canadian tax content to read and discuss, so if you are a tax blogger, or if you have a different go-to site for Canadian tax information, please either post a comment on this post, or send me an email at info@intaxicating.ca and I will add the site to my blogroll.

The more Canadian tax information we can get together as a community, means we can help Canadian taxpayers that much better!

 

Director’s Liability Overview, Plus A Due Diligence Defense We Are Unlikely To See Used Again

I had a nice long conversation with a client the other day regarding the potential that either the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) or the Provincial government (in Ontario) were going to pursue a Director’s Liability assessment against him for the debts of his now-deceased corporation.  Part of the discussion surrounded how the Canada Revenue Agency and the former Ontario Retail Sales Tax (RST) group handled assessments, and the criteria they used when reviewing whether or not to pierce the corporate shield, plus the importance of a due diligence defense.

Director's Liability Section from the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act.
Director’s Liability Section from the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act.

During my employment at the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), I felt I needed to gain a more thorough understanding of Director’s Liability and figure out why there were so few assessments raised in our office compared to other offices.   I personally had not raised any Director’s Liability assessments mainly because I was effective on the phone and combined with meetings, was able to resolve many debts prior to the assessment stage.  Still, Senior Management encourage the Collections staff to utilize this collection tool more, so as the Resource and Complex Case Officer, I asked for, and was given, the Director’s Liability inventory to control.

By controlling the Director’s Liability inventory, that meant I needed to know the ins and outs of Director’s Liability – section 227.1 of the Income Tax Act and section 323 of the Excise Tax Act, because if anyone in our office wanted to raise an assessment, I would have to review their account, ensure all of the much-needed grunt work had been completed, then ensure they had spoken to the Director(s), given them sufficient notice, provided them time for a Due Diligence Defense, at which point I could sign off and begin to track the file.

After organizing that inventory and rolling out the new procedures, I began to scour the accounts in our office for potential Director’s Liability assessments, then, in addition to my other inventories, provide recommendations and suggestions to the staff on how to proceed if I felt there was a possibility for an assessment.  Management decided instead of burdening the staff, I should just take those accounts I felt were ready for Director’s Liability assessments and work them, plus all of the other accounts I was tracking where assessments were raised too.

It was a fair amount of work, but more importantly, it was very enlightening, to review the government’s policies on Director’s Liabilities plus review the procedures in place, compare that to how other office’s handled their files and really tighten up the process.  If an account was a sure-fire Director’s Liability assessment, it was raised, and if there was no chance, or not the right time, the file was returned to active collections.

I found the first common misconception around Director’s Liability was that the issuance of the Director’s Liability Pre-Assessment Proposal Letter (which notifies director’s that we are reviewing them for Director’s Liability) was being used as just another letter by the Collections staff to remind directors of their obligations, when in fact the CRA intended on using this letter to notify Directors’ that an assessment was beginning.  Internally, the Canada Revenue Agency was actually starting to investigate the personal ability to pay of the director(s) at the time this letter was issued.

Going forward, that letter was not to be used lightly, and it was not to be sent to the Director(s) numerous times.  A Director would then have the assessment raised against them and wonder why it was raised this time, and not earlier when one of those letters went out, so in order to prevent a possible loss in Tax Court, the decision was made to send it once, and then follow-up with the Due Diligence defense letter before raising the assessment.

Ignoring the Due Diligence defense letter (which happens often) meant the one opportunity a Director had to start their case on the record was lost, and with the CRA building their case in the permanent diary, the Director(s) stood little chance of preventing the Canada Revenue Agency from raising the Director’s Liability.

Once that waiting period passes, the file usually gets very quiet…

From the Director’s point of view, either the assessment is raised and they receive a letter from the CRA stating that, or the assessment is raised and the letter gets lost in the mail (tossed out), or the assessment is raised and before the Director is notified, their personal assets come under fire.  There is of course, the possibility that nothing happens and the Director(s) are left in limbo, but without having a dialogue with the CRA, or experience around the policies and procedures, there is no way that the Director(s) will know when and if the CRA is coming – if at all.

Once raised, the Director(s) have quite limited options.

A recent court case, which I will highlight below demonstrates a situation where an assessment was raised, and in Tax Court, the decision was turned over and the assessment cancelled.  I guarantee it won’t happen again, as the CRA will ensure their processes are tightened even more to close this loophole.

The case was Bekesinski V The Queen.

The link to the case on the website for the Tax Court of Canada, is here.

In this case, Bekesinski was the Director of a corporation who was personally assessed by the Minister of National Revenue (CRA) in the amount $477,546.08 for the corporation’s unremitted income tax (T2) and employer contributions of CPP and EI for payroll (source deductions) plus penalties and interest for the 2001, 2002 and 2003 fiscal years.

Under Director’s Liability, the CRA can assess directors for payroll and for GST/HST, but not Corporate Tax liabilities.

The Tax Court of Canada held that since the taxpayer had resigned as a director of the corporation more than two years after the CRA’s assessment, the CRA was statue barred from raising the Director’s Liability assessment.

This was something the CRA should have known before raising the assessment and something that the director (or his representatives) should have mentioned at any point during the pre-assessment proposal period, especially at the due diligence defense stage, but was never mentioned.

Brief Overview of the Facts

In 1992 the taxpayer purchased D.W. Stewart Cartage Ltd., a general cartage, trucking and warehousing company where he served as a Director of the corporation.

When the corporation fell behind on filing obligations and as the balance owing to the CRA began to grow, the Director began to receive numerous letters from the CRA warning him that he could be held personally liable for the corporation’s tax debts as a Director of the corporation.  He did not notify the CRA at any time that he had resigned as a Director of the corporation.

On October 15, 2010 the CRA raised Director’s Liability and issued a Notice of Assessment (NOA) to the taxpayer for unremitted income tax, employer contributions plus penalties and interest in the amount of $477,546.08.

The Director then argued that he should not have been assessed as a Director because he resigned as Director of the corporation on July 20, 2006 by way of a Notice of Resignation which would have made the raising of the assessment statute barred.

The CRA argued that the taxpayer was in fact a director and that the taxpayer had backdated the resignation to qualify for the exception, which happens more than you could imagine, and to counter this trick, the CRA often requests an “ink date test” to determine the authenticity of the Notice of Resignation.

Unfortunately for the CRA, the results from the ink date test was excluded by the Tax Court because the CRA did not advise the Court that they felt the Notice of Resignation was back-dated.  Even the judge felt the Notice of Resignation was backdated, however since the CRA failed to mention it, it was not open for review in the Court.

In summation, Bekesinski avoided Director’s Liability for the corporate tax debts due to a litigation misstep on the part of the CRA, a mistake they are unlikely to be repeat.

It is highly advisable for corporate directors to carefully document their resignations so as to avoid potential future Director’s Liability assessments, because I guarantee, the CRA will challenges to the authenticity of backdated resignations on each and every case going forward.

A Lesson in POWER: How to ALWAYS Level the Playing Field with the CRA.

Power is a funny thing.

Pretty much everyone wants it at some point in their life.

Most of the people who have it do not know how to use it properly.

To be honest, few will ever get it.

The most important thing to know about power is that it is most successful when used in two ways; either by declaring yourself King and having your cronies keep everyone else at bay by whatever means possible, or secondly by taking the time to get key players on your side and using your network to help you maintain power but all along helping those around you learn and grow, and they help everyone else under them do the same.

Which model do you think is most often associated with government tax collections agencies?

Having spent a lot of time working at the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) in the collections and enforcement division and being responsible for training collections, enforcement and audit staff there I can honestly say not as many staff there who feel you have to do what they say no matter the consequences as you would think.

It is true that there are employees of the CRA who feel that being in a position of power allows them to do things, say things and act in a manner which is improper or unjustified.  There are also staff there who take their positions of power to a whole new level and they let their egos control their decision-making process which means they wield power in order to realize an outcome in their best interest, not yours.

I have seen how power corrupts and the result is never easy to correct.

The CRA has a lot of power.

Throughout my decade of employment at the Canada Revenue Agency I was surprised with how much power the Agency has and how many taxpayers feared this power.  I could hear collection officers tell taxpayers that they could clean out their bank accounts like “this!” (Insert snapping of fingers sound here), which is true, but also not true.  I learned to be subtle in my use of my apparent super-powers and the way I used my power was to visit my clients and by always making sure that when sitting with a taxpayer / representative that my chair was at its highest so that I would be looking down at them.  It was all I needed when dealing with the career tax evaders because it worked, but it was a tactic not necessary when dealing with 99% of the people I met with.

However, we already know that the CRA has a lot of power and in most cases before they use it, they are going to let you know first by phone, letter or a visit to your home or place of employment.  Once the CRA has decided they need to use their powers they are bound by the guidelines set out in the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act and by policies and procedures set out in their tax office.  The extent to which they use their powers is either their decision or it is influenced by their team leader or manager.

Once the CRA starts using their powers, your ability to control the outcome diminishes greatly. What you can control, is how much power you will ALLOW the CRA to use against you.

This is done by being proactive – reading notices, asking questions and keeping all your paperwork in one spot where you can access it once it is asked for.  But if you are past that point, or if it is just not possible, then you can take power back by enlisting the help of people who know the CRA policies, procedures and most importantly, their techniques and tactics.

If the CRA knew they were dealing with someone who knew more about their job, more about their techniques and more about how quickly they need to take an action which they claim is urgent, then the playing field is changed forever.

Having someone there to look after your best interests, who will tell you what the best plan of action for you, and you only, then taking that plan to the CRA and telling them the same is the best way to always level the playing field.  Negotiating is always easier when you know more than your opponent.

So please, if you have a tax problem, old or new, and you have been spinning your wheels with the CRA, the IRS, the MRQ, WSIB or the CRTC, don’t let it continue any longer.  Come visit inTAXicating.ca, or send us an email at info@intaxicating.ca and take advantage of our free consultation to leave how to put these issues behind you once and for all.

Have you ever been put in a position where you accepted something which was not in your best interests because the other side had all the power?

Happy to read your comments below.