Former Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) Auditor Not Guilty of Fraud

A former Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) auditor and his wife were found not guilty of fraud when a judge rules that the CRA failed to prove that the fraud was intentional.

This is significant, folks!

The original article can be found here;

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/former-canada-revenue-agency-auditing-employee-and-wife-found-not-guilty-of-tax-evasion/

What I truly hope is that this ruling provides the CRA with a much clearer understanding that there are actually some Taxpayers and businesses (and even former employees) who might not fully understand the CRA’s rules and regulations and their application, and that there exists a chance that people make mistakes.

I’m not saying in this case that there was a mistake – and I don;t believe that the judge was saying that either, but what was very clear from this ruling is that the for the CRA to win a case they need proof and facts.

The CRA obviously will be appealing this decision.

My experience in the CRA has afforded me this insight which I happily pass along to each of you who read this…  It’s okay to make mistakes.  We all do.  The CRA does not expect each and every Canadian Taxpayer to be tax experts, but where the CRA has zero tolerance is where Taxpayers try to circumvent the rules and do so knowingly.  At that point, you can’t claim you didn’t know the rules.  You’ll be no mercy from the Crown at that point in time.

As well, there are many, many, many opportunities to resolve the tax issues before having to bear the expenses of going to tax court!  This ruling was the first of it’s kind, and considering how many people want to sue the CRA or take the CRA to court, it makes you wonder who is advising them, and who is paying their bills!

To understand where you stand and what your options are, you can start by contacting inTAXicating Tax Services, at http://www.intaxicating.ca, and start dealing with you tax issues with the facts.

info@intaxicating.ca

Advertisements

Fired CRA Employee Denied Access to Tax Records… Duh!

A Superior Court judge has dismissed the application of a former Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) employee requesting the CRA produce various third-party records for use in his defence.

Christopher Casola of Sudbury faces charges including breach of trust by accessing taxpayer information other than for the public good, fraudulently accessing a CRA computer, as well as two counts that allege that the breach of trust and unauthorized use of a computer were done for the benefit of The Bacchus Motorcycle Club, and he faces eight counts involving several weapons offences, including possession of an SKS assault rifle, alleged to have occurred in 2016.

The CRA will fire, and prosecute those who access information which they are not entitled to, and because the CRA’s computer system tracks all accesses (including date, time, and how long they were there) it can be a very easy case to make.

Oddly, in his defense, the accused requested access to various CRA records, including the mainframe computer that contains the records of all individuals who have filed a tax return; the CRA Matching Action Review System (MARS) database accessible on servers between March 26, 2014, and Jan. 7, 2015; a data dump of the entire Notepad option in the MARS database; as well as what is referred to as the “entire CRA workload audit trail” in connection with the review of the accused’s work that was undertaken by the CRA after security concerns became known.

In a decision delivered July 11, Justice Dan Cornell wrote that the applicant had stated the records were necessary to duplicate the CRA’s internal review, which allegedly indicated Casola, a former assessment processing clerk in the electronic processing and records division at the Sudbury Tax Centre, had accessed the files of several individuals with alleged connections to another motorcycle club, thereby contravening the agency’s code of ethics and conduct.

Justice Cornell accepted the Crown’s argument, however, that the applicant did not articulate why they required entries for dates other that those when the alleged unauthorized access occurred.

“Despite being asked on more than one occasion to provide a reason for the requests that have been made, the only answer that was given is that the accused ‘wants to recreate the CRA process to double check the results to see if the results are accurate’,” the justice wrote. “This is not sufficient to establish that the information that is being sought is likely relevant to an issue that may arise at trial.

“The applicant did not provide an expert report, or for that matter, outline any possible concerns about the accuracy of the information that was provided or to raise questions about the process that was followed by the CRA during the review of the CRA records. In the end, all that was put forward in support of the request for the production of third party records were vague assertions that there was a problem with the results of the searches that had been undertaken.”

Those “vague assertions” amount to nothing more than “sheer speculation,” Cornell wrote, and “fall far short of satisfying the onus that lies upon the applicant to establish that such third party records should be produced in order to permit the accused to make full answer and defence.”

“In view of the fact that I have determined that the information sought is not likely relevant to an issue at trial or the competence of a witness to testify, I need not attempt to balance competing privacy interests of those who would be affected by disclosure against the accused’s right to be able to make full answer and defence.”

The accused could have requested a trail of his accesses through the Access to Information program available to all CRA employees and every Canadian Citizen.

 

If you would like, you can read the full decision, here; www.canlii.ca/t/hszmv.

 

CRA Problems? Here is what you need to do!

CDAHQsignage2

Do you have problems with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)?

Do you owe the CRA money?

Are you behind on your personal (T1) tax filings?

Are you a business owner and you have fallen behind on payroll, GST/HST or Corporate Tax (T2) returns?

Has the CRA registered a lien against a property you own?

Have you transferred and asset and the CRA is assessing a 3rd party for your debts?

Are there garnishments on you bank account or against your wages?

Do you own a business and the CRA is contemplating Director’s liability?

Is the CRA taking you to court, and you just don’t understand if you have a case or not?

Does any of this make sense to you?

It’s complicated, it’s time sensitive and it’s extremely frustrating that the CRA would rather force you, or your business into bankruptcy that work with you, isn’t it?

Here is what you need to know before you can do anything to solve these problems:

  1. If you search online using any keywords related to CRA, tax, debt, or urgency, you might wind up here (you can thank me later), or you might wind up at a trustee.  Bankruptcy firms have covered the internet with keywords aimed to make you think that the best and only option for you, is bankruptcy or a consumer proposal.  While it might be, there are SO many other options!!!  You don’t need a trustee to put you in bankruptcy in order to remove a RTP, when asking the CRA to remove it might be the way to go.
  2. Just like the phone scams claiming to be from the CRA, or wanting to clear your ducts, there are many “Tax Solutions” firms out there disguised as your ideal solution, when they want your money, your trust and then you accept their advice that bankruptcy is the best option for you.  You can identify these firms this way:
    1. They buy followers on Facebook, Twitter and other social media accounts they operate.
    2. They write blog posts not intended to help you, but to scare you.
    3. They refer to the CRA as being bad, evil, and as the “Tax Man.”  That approach is proven to never work.  Even if you detest the CRA, telling them that won’t help your case.
    4. They hide their true intentions; either that they are part of a Trustee in Bankruptcy or by calling themselves fun names, to distract you from who they are and who the owners are.
  3. You need to know what the CRA wants from you, and how to go about fixing it.  If you don’t know how the debt came about or what the CRA can, will, or have done to you already, then you cannot fix it, or have someone fix it for you, and,
  4. You need to know what will happen to you / your company / your family, in the instance where you decide to; do nothing, pay the balance, file the returns, fully comply with the CRA or choose bankruptcy / consumer proposal.

Without knowing answers to the above 4 questions, you cannot properly fix your tax problems once and for all.

If the “solution” to your 5, 10, 15 or 20-year tax problem can be fixed in one meeting and for a fee, what exactly are you getting?

Tax problems that take years to establish, sometime take years to resolve.  Considering some of the alternatives, it’s worth it to know that your CRA problems have been resolved and you are not exchanging a CRA tax problem for a bankruptcy / consumer proposal problem.

Ask, before you begin.

info@intaxicating.ca

Tell us about your tax problems, and let us tell you what the best option for YOU is.  If the solution can be achieved through a simple action which you can do, then you get moving on it.

If it requires some expertise or assistance, then leave that up to us.

Former CRA Collections expertise to help you when you need it the most!

 

 

Statute of Limitations for Tax Debt: Canada

Statute of Limitations for CRA Debts – Truth vs Myth

There is a common belief that there is a statute of limitations on tax debts and that taxpayers can ride out these periods and ultimately pay no taxes.  Google it, and you will see all kinds of information out there, but it’s the Canada Revenue Agencies information which matters the most.

A Collections Limitation Period (CLP) is the time in which the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) can begin actions to collect a tax debt.

Myth: After the CRA issues a notice of assessment, it has either 6 years or 10 years to collect the debt. If you don’t pay what you owe within that time, the CRA can no longer collect the debt.

Fact: Each tax debt has a 6 or 10 year collections limitation period (depending on the tax) and the limitation period can be restarted or extended by the CRA when certain events occur.  At that point, the total amount of time that the CRA has to collect the debt will be longer than 6 or 10 years.

Even after the collections limitation period ends, you can still have a tax debt and interest will continue to accrue until the tax debt is paid in full.

 

Start of the collections limitation period

The limitation period starts on the date that a notice of assessment or reassessment is sent, or 90 days after that date, depending on the type of tax debt.

 

Types of tax debt

The collections limitation period start date and duration will be different depending on the type of tax debt. Some tax debts are subject to collections restrictions, while others are not.

The following are some of the most common types of tax debt:

 

Individual (T1)

The Collections Limitation Period (CLP) starts on the 91st day after the CRA issues the notice of assessment – unless there is an objection filed.  There is a 10-year CLP on T1 debts which can be re-started and extended by the CRA.

 

Corporate (T2)

The CLP starts on the 91st day after a notice of assessment or reassessment is sent unless a NOA or appeal has been filed.  The 10-year CLP applies, however the CLP can be restarted and extended.

 

Large Corporations (as defined by the Income Tax Act)

The CLP starts on the 91st day after a NOA or reassessment is sent.   The 10-year CLP applies, however, the CLP can be restarted and extended.

This type of tax debt is subject to a 90-day collection restriction for the period after a notice of assessment or reassessment is sent, however, the CRA can act to collect 50% of the amount owing by a large corporation as soon as a notice of assessment or reassessment is sent.  The CRA can start collection action on the 91st day for the remaining 50% of the amounts owed by a large corporation, unless a notice of objection or appeal is filed.

 

Payroll (T4) Deductions

The CLP starts the day after the Notice of Assessment is sent.  There is a 6-year collections limitation period, however this CLP can be restarted and extended at any time.

NOTE: There is no collections restriction on Trust funds, so the CRA can begin collections actions the day after a Notice of Assessment has been sent.

NOTE: If a Notice of Objection or an appeal has been filed, the CRA can continue to collect the debt(s)

 

GST/HST

The Collections Limitation Period starts the day after the Notice of Assessment is sent and while the 10-year CLP applies, it can be re-started and extended at any time.

NOTE: Additionally, since GST/HST are also Trust Funds (funds held in trust for the Crown), there is no collection restriction once the Notice of Assessment has been sent.

NOTE: If a Notice of Objection or appeal is filed, the CRA can continue to collect the debt(s).

 

Collection Restriction Period

For tax debts subject to collection restrictions, the CRA cannot start collection action:

  • during the 90 days after a notice of assessment or reassessment is sent
  • during the time that you dispute your debt by filing a notice of objection or appeal

However, if the CRA determines that it might not be able to collect a tax debt because of collection restrictions, it can apply to the Federal Court (Canada) for a jeopardy order.  If granted, this order will let the CRA take collection action immediately.

 

Restart of the collections limitation period

The limitation period is restarted when either you or the CRA takes certain actions. Tax debts subject to the 6-year limitation period are restarted for another 6 years and tax debts subject to the 10-year limitation are restarted for another 10 years.

The following are examples of actions that will restart the collections limitation period. This is not a complete list.

 

Actions you initiate

The collections limitation period will restart when you:

  • Make a voluntary payment
  • Write a letter to the CRA proposing a payment arrangement
  • Offer to provide security instead of paying the amount owed
  • Make a written request for a reassessment of an amount assessed
  • File a notice of objection with the CRA
  • File an appeal with the Tax Court of Canada
  • Ask the CRA if you can make pre-authorized debt payments

 

Actions the CRA initiates

The CRA takes various actions to collect tax debts when taxpayers don’t make voluntary payments.

The collections limitation period will restart when the CRA:

  • Issues a garnishment or statutory set-off to collect an outstanding tax debt when you don’t make voluntary payments
  • Applies a refundable credit to your tax debt and notifies you by sending a letter or Statement Of Account
  • Issues a NOA or reassessment against a third party for amounts you owe
  • Certifies your tax debt in the Federal Court of Canada
  • Initiates seizure and sale action to collect your outstanding tax debt

 

Extension of the collections limitation period

The events listed below can extend the collections limitation period. When this happens, the clock stops running on the date that an event begins and it will not run during the event.

This has the effect of stalling the collections limitation period.

When the event is completed, the collections limitation period resumes where it left off.

Other events can then restart the limitation period.  It will end when the 6‑year or 10-year limit has been reached, even if it took more years than that to reach that limit if you include the stalled time.

The following events can extend the collections limitation period:

  • You file an assignment (bankruptcy or proposal) under the BIA, CCAA or FDMA.
  • The CRA accepts security instead of payment of a tax debt.
  • You become a non-resident of Canada after the CRA issues a NOA or reassessment.
  • The CRA postpones collection action without accepting security for an objected or appealed GST/HST debt. This applies only to GST/HST tax debts assessed under the Excise Tax Act.
  • You file a Notice of Objection with the CRA. This will extend the limitation period only for tax debts subject to collection restrictions.
  • You file an appeal with the Tax Court of Canada. This will extend the limitation period only for tax debts subject to collection restrictions.

 

NOTE: Filing a Notice of Objection with the CRA or an appeal with the Tax Court of Canada will restart the collections limitation period for all types of tax debts because both of these actions are considered acknowledgments of debt.

Similarly, if your tax debt is subject to collection restrictions, filing an objection or appeal will extend the collections limitation period.

 

End of the collections limitation period

Once the period ends, the CRA cannot take any further action to collect the debt, however, the tax debt still exists and you can make voluntary payments.  Voluntary payments you make after the limitation period ends will not restart it.

What Do Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo and Floyd Mayweather Have in Common?

What Do Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo and Floyd Mayweather have in common aside from being top atheletes in their respective sports, and extreme wealth?

Tax Troubles!

Ronaldo and Messi with the Spanish Tax Authroity, and Mayweather with the IRS, which just goes to show you that no matter how much money you have, or don’t have, you still have to report income, file on time and pay your taxes!

In Ronaldo’s case, the Spanish Hacienda tax authority believes Ronaldo failed to pay €14.7 million in taxes pertaining to income earned on his “image rights” between 2011 and 2014.  The belief is that he used (and still uses) a shell company in the British Virgin Islands and Ireland, to hide at least €78m in image rights.

Ronaldo’s camp claim that he has fulfilled all his tax obligations, maintaining that the majority of his image-rights income is earned abroad and therefore not liable for Spanish tax.

How does Ronaldo’s situation differ from Lionel Messi’s tax case?
Barcelona star Lionel Messi and his father Jorge were found guilty of tax fraud in July 2016 after it was found they had hidden image-rights income from the Spanish authorities. Messi was fined €3.6m and sentenced to 21 months in prison (which was suspended) for defrauding €4.1m between 2007-09.

The Messi family had previously paid over at least €10m in back taxes and charges, long before their case made it to court.

In Messi’s case, the court determined there was a total failure to fill his tax obligations on image rights income.

A huge concern stemming from the The Supreme Court’s judgement in the Messi surrounded the role that Messi’s tax and financial advisors played and how both parties were not indicted as part of the prosecution since they there was evidence that they advised the player on how to evade taxes.

In Spain, a  guilty verdict for an aggravated tax crime means a mandatory jail time of two to six years, while conviction of the lesser offence brings a suspended sentence.  If Ronaldo admits to the details in front of the judge within two months after being accused, and pays over the amounts allegedly defrauded, his punishment could be reduced.

Messi’s 21-month prison sentence for tax fraud was reduced to a €252,000 fine, while his father’s 15-month prison sentence was reduced to a €180,000 fine.

These fines are in addition to the re-payment of the taxes originally owing plus any penalties and interest accrued to the balance.

Floyd Mayweather, and his estimated net worth of $340 million is in trouble with the IRS and has apparently filed a petition asking for a temporary reprieve from unpaid taxes from 2015 until after his fight with Conor McGregor in August.

Apparently, while he has substantial assets, those assets are restricted and primarily illiquid. The upcoming fight against McGregor, however, would provide Mayweather with enough liquid cash to pay the IRS debt from 2015 in full.

Mayweather, made $220 million alone from his 2015 fight against Manny Pacquiao. It is unclear how much he owes the IRS in taxes.  Given a 15-month lapse since the 2015 tax due date, Mayweather would owe 7.5% in penalties plus accruing interest on top of what he was already scheduled to pay.

Forbes estimated Mayweather’s net worth at $340 million in January.

 

So the moral of the story is this;

Not everyone wants to pay their taxes, and some will go to great lengths to reduce or avoid paying taxes. If that is something that you feel you must do, you have to be prepared for the consequences of your actions when and if the government comes back to you.

File on time.

Pay on time.

Don’t pay the government more than you should.

If you need help because you’re carrying a balance with the CRA and you want to discuss options, contact us today!

http://www.intaxicating.ca

@inTAXicating

info@intaxicating.ca

416.833.1581

 

ESOP termination in bankruptcy – US. Who pays?

What happens if a company, that you work for, is in chapter 11 and the new owners want the ESOP plan terminated. The present value of the stock is $0. The stock is not publicly traded. There is some cash left in the cash accounts associated with each participants ESOP account. The trustee is using the cash for the ESOP termination costs. Is this legal or should the company be picking up the costs?

Well, in this case, the court has authorized the payments out of the participants cash funds. As well, if you refer to your plan specific documentation, you will probably find that the company is under no obligation to pay for any plan expenses and the Trustee can use the ESOP funds to pay for costs.

The question of whether plan assets can be used to pay the costs of plan termination is addressed in DOL Advisory Opinion 97-03A. It is a fiduciary question under ERISA (employee retirement income security act). and requires an analysis of the terms of the plan document and of whether the termination of the plan is for the benefit of the participants or the plan sponsor. The cash in the ESOP is not an asset in the bankruptcy estate of the employer. While 97-03A does not refer to ESOP’s it does mention tax qualified pension plans, which indicates that the plan pays for the termination, specifically, “Accordinly, reasonable expenses incurred in implementing a plan termination would generally be payable by the plan.”