The Truth and Myths Around the CRA’s Taxpayer Relief Program

There is quite a lot of information on the Internet around the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) Taxpayer Relief Program (formerly known as fairness).  Understandably, there is also a lot of misinformation around this program.  After having spent almost 11 years working in the CRA – beginning as an entry-level collector and working my way up through the division to a team leader before taking my MBA and heading into the private sector –  I have learned quite a lot about how the Taxpayer Relief program actually works.Myth vs Reality

This post will identify the key objectives of the program straight from the CRA, and then highlights some common myths about the program and the actual fact about why it makes sense to invest considerable time and effort into an application, or engage the services of someone who knows the program inside and out.

The Taxpayer Relief program was set up to allow for the Minister of National Revenue to grant relief from penalty and/or interest when the following types of situations prevent a taxpayer (individual or corporation) from meeting their tax obligations:

  • Extraordinary circumstances;
  • Actions of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA);
  • Inability to pay or financial hardship;
  • Other circumstances

The program distinguishes between “cancelling” and “waiving” of penalties and/or interest as the CRA understands that granting relief to a taxpayer only to see them smothering in penalties and interest again is an exercise in futility.

The term “cancel” refers to a penalty or interest amount that is assessed or charged for which relief is granted, in whole or in part, by the CRA.

The term “waive” refers to a penalty or interest amount that is not yet assessed or charged for which relief is granted, in whole or in part, by the CRA.

The term “Taxpayer” includes individual, employer or payer, corporation, partnership, organization, trust, estate, goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) registrant or claimant.

Now, you or your client, has been charged penalties and / or interest and you want to know if you qualify.  Look no further than the CRA website, and their section on Taxpayer Relief, here.

Circumstances that may warrant relief include;

Extraordinary circumstances

Penalties or interest may be cancelled or waived in whole or in part when they result from circumstances beyond a taxpayer’s control.  Extraordinary circumstances that may have prevented a taxpayer from making a payment when due, filing a return on time, or otherwise complying with a tax obligation include, but are not limited to, the following examples:

  • Natural or human-made disasters, such as a flood or fire;
  • Civil disturbances or disruptions in services, such as a postal strike;
  • Serious illness or accident; and
  • Serious emotional or mental distress, such as death in the immediate family.

Actions of the CRA

The CRA may also cancel or waive penalties or interest when they result primarily from CRA actions, including:

  • Processing delays that result in taxpayers not being informed, within a reasonable time, that an amount was owing;
  • Errors in CRA material which led a taxpayer to file a return or make a payment based on incorrect information;
  • Incorrect information provided to a taxpayer by the CRA (usually in writing);
  • Errors in processing;
  • Delays in providing information, resulting in taxpayers not being able to meet their tax obligations in a timely manner; and
  • Undue delays in resolving an objection or an appeal, or in completing an audit.

Inability to pay or financial hardship

The CRA may, in circumstances where there is a confirmed inability to pay amounts owing, consider waiving or cancelling interest in whole or in part to enable taxpayers to pay their account. For example, this could occur when:

  • A collection has been suspended because of an inability to pay caused by the loss of employment and the taxpayer is experiencing financial hardship;
  • A taxpayer is unable to conclude a payment arrangement because the interest charges represent a significant portion of the payments; or
  • Payment of the accumulated interest would cause a prolonged inability to provide basic necessities (financial hardship) such as food, medical help, transportation, or shelter; consideration may be given to cancelling all or part of the total accumulated interest.

Consideration would not generally be given to cancelling a penalty based on an inability to pay or financial hardship unless an extraordinary circumstance prevented compliance, or an exceptional situation existed. For example, when a business is experiencing extreme financial difficulty and enforcement of such penalties would jeopardize the continuity of its operations, the jobs of the employees, and the welfare of the community as a whole, consideration may be given to providing relief of the penalties.

Other circumstances

The CRA may also grant relief if a taxpayer’s circumstances do not fall within the situations described above.

The CRA expects these guidelines to be used when applying for relief and that the requests are made within the deadlines for requesting relief, which is limited to any period that ended within 10 years before the calendar year in which a request is submitted or an income tax return is filed.   The 10-year limitation period rolls forward every January 1st.

If filed using the correct form, with sufficient supporting documentation, a response from the Taxpayer Relief Program can take anywhere from 3 months to 2 years due to the amount of requests.  In order to ensure that you are making the best claim possible, you really should engage the services of a professional, as they would be able to assess whether or not your request is sufficient, and they would ensure that you meet all the other conditions which must be in place for the CRA to review and consider your application.

At the end of the day, if you have a reasonable chance of being successful under this program, the investment made to have it written, reviewed or monitored by an expert is a worthwhile expenditure.

Now let’s have a look at some common myths around this program which are floating around the Internet.

Myths

Myth: That the CRA’s Taxpayer Relief program is a one time program and that you had better take your best shot the time you decide to apply.

Reality: Not true,  This program is available to all Canadians who have been charged penalties and / or interest and as such, they have the right to ask for relief each and every time it is warranted.  The Taxpayer Relief Group do not maintain collection inventories and as such they review each case on the merit of its submission without any influence from the permanent collections diary or the collector assigned to the case.

Myth: That the CRA’s Taxpayer Relief Program is used in order for the CRA and a taxpayer to negotiate a deal which would resolve the taxpayer’s debt issue by settling the debt and accepting less than the actual amount owed to them.

Reality: Never, ever, ever!  The CRA does NOT settle debts outside of bankruptcy or a proposal, and they certainly do not use the taxpayer relief program for this purpose.  As a matter of fact, I can speak of a first hand experience where a collector used the word “settle” in the permanent collection diary of a corporation which had paid a principle tax debt of $650,000, because they wanted to fight the $775,000 in penalties and interest through Taxpayer Relief.  The CRA sent back the $650,000 and re-opened negotiation with the corporation because they did not want to set the precedent of settling tax debts through the Taxpayer Relief Program.

Myth: I cannot afford to pay my taxes, so I am not going to file my tax return, and then when I have a debt, I can ask for relief because I had no money?

Reality:  Failure to file a tax return is a criminal offence which can result in prosecution, so you should always file, and be clear to the CRA upfront that money is tight.  But before an application is made to the Taxpayer Relief Program, all outstanding returns must be filed up to date, and all installments must be accounted for.  Otherwise, the application is set aside until everything is current.

Myth: Having a disability or illness from birth qualifies me for Taxpayer Relief.

Reality: Probably not.  If you have managed to conduct your affairs for a period of time without any tax issues, but then something happens which cases the accumulation of penalties and interest, you cannot use your disability or illness when applying for relief, unless something happened during the period in which the penalties and / or interest were applied as a result of a worsening of your disability / illness.  In that case, you would need to substantiate this with supporting letters from your doctors and specialists.  

Myth:  I met with someone who is going to write a letter to the CRA asking for relief and they have sent me the letter to review.  If I sign it, and they send it off, am I now being considered for relief?

Reality:  Not any more.   Years ago, taxpayers were able to send in letters to the fairness department which contained their reasons for asking for relief and some would include supporting documentation, while others would not.  However, since the CRA revamped the Taxpayer Relief Program, they require that the form RC4288 be included in the package or the claim will be rejected.

Myth:  I need to be pre-qualified for the CRA Taxpayer Relief Program.

Reality: No.  You can determine if you may qualify, or you can seek a professional to help you determine if you have grounds for relief, but there is no pre-qualification of this program.

Myth: If my claim is rejected, then I have to pay the penalties and interest.

Reality:  You should make arrangements to pay the penalties and interest in any case in order to stop the interest clock from ticking should the claim be denied – wherever possible, however, the Taxpayer Relief Program allows for a second-level review to be performed (usually with additional information provided) and there is an option for judicial review should the second level review be unfavourable.

 

So take some time to look around when you are considering an application under the Taxpayer Relief Program and make sure that if you engage someone you do so for the right reasons.

Advertisements

CRA Acting Unusually, or Cabot Business To Be Charged With Tax Evasion

In what is either a case of the CRA acting in an unusual manner, or a business has misplayed their hand  – and is being charged with tax evasion under the Income Tax Act (ITA) and the Excise Tax Act (ETA).

Time will tell who is in the wrong.

The CBC has reported that a St. John’s car dealership and a director of the dealership, are being accused of tax evasion and making false and deceptive statements on tax returns by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

The CRA filed charges under the ITA and the ETA against Cabot Ford Lincoln Sales Limited and director Frank Clarke, for the 2009-2011 taxation years.

The CRA has alleged in their court documents that Cabot Ford overstated their expenses in those 3-year by more than $240,000 in order to evade taxes owing by around $45,000 and on the GST side, they underpaid around $14,000 in GST through “false or deceptive statements” provided on their GST returns.

The director, is accused of personally evading more than $76,000 in taxes by failing to declare more than $270,000 in income over that same three-year period.

What I find really unusual, is that this case is not yet before the courts, so just by reading this, we are automatically coming to the conclusion that this company and director have done something illegal, however, that might not be true.  The director told the CBC that they are “still trying to understand everything ourselves, especially since the Canada Revenue Agency has not yet informed us of all details of the situation.”

If that is the case, having this go public is the worst case scenario for the business if the CRA’s claims turn out to be true.

On the other hand, if the CRA’s claims turn out to be false, then this would be another case where the CRA have stepped beyond their means to force an issue which was incorrect or inaccurate.

The director believes that the investigation is still underway, when he told the CBC that he [has] “been in touch with the CRA during their investigation and will continue to co-operate with them as this all moves forward.”

The charges were filed last week, and the matter is scheduled to be back at provincial court in St. John’s on March 26th.

We will be watching to see if this gets resolved ahead of time and what the long-term repercussions of this position taken by the business and by the CRA will be.

I would like to say that I would never let the CRA issue a press release about a client of mine which could do harm to their day-to-day viability – these issues can always be worked out in advance, however, not knowing all the details, it’s hard to say why this was done and who pushed for it.

If you have tax troubles with the CRA, or need them to stand down or back off, you need to contact inTAXicating Tax Services!  Visit our website at www.intaxicating.ca, or email us at info@intaxicating.ca

Former CRA Collections expertise to help resolve a CRA Collections problem.

inTAXicating: Nominated for the 2013 Canadian Blog Awards

I just learned that inTAXicating has been nominated for the 2013 Canadian Blog Awards – under the law category.Canadian Blog Awards badge

If you would to see the other blogs nominated in the other categories or if you would like to vote for inTAXicating, you can follow the link here; http://cdnba.wordpress.com/

Voting ends February 22nd, 2014.

The Canadian Blog Awards are a great way to recognize Canadian blogging talent. By taking the time to read other Canadian blogs and through your voting you are supporting Canadian writers.

I checked out many of the other nominated blogs and voted in each and every category as a way to give back.

Thank you in advance and please keep reading, commenting and asking questions!  Also don’t forget to visit my webpage at http://www.intaxicating.ca for help with all your tax concerns.

Claiming Gas or Mileage? How to avoid having this expense denied by the Canada Revenue Agency.

Many taxpayers here in Canada are advised to “keep their receipts” when they claim mileage and / or gas on their tax returns.  The thought here is that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) might audit your tax return and will deny your claim if you cannot show proof, but what are you allowed to deduct?  Does it matter if you are self-employed or if you are a salaried employee?  Did you know that just keeping your receipts is not enough and there might be deductions you are entitled to that you are not claiming?

It all matters.

If you are claiming vehicle expenses and you are a salaried T4 employee working for someone else, then you need to know this;

Or, if you are self employed, you need to know this;

So if you rely on your accountant to take care of this for you, or if you wish to use the services of Intaxicating Tax Services, at the very least, you need to be aware of this important fact;

The CRA regularly rejects gas receipts from taxpayers who pay for their gas with debit cards.  Why?  Because they are not sure if you are getting cash back on the transaction – that does not show on the debit slip.

Example: I go to fill up my car 3 times a week, and each time I put in $20.00 worth of gasoline, but get cash back of $80.00 each time.  My debit slip reads $100.00, and I claim $300.00 worth of gasoline expenses for that week on my tax return when in actual fact I was only entitled to receive a deduction in the amount of $60.00.

In addition, if you are required to travel a lot for work, make sure that you have a calendar at home and at the office (on the office computers) which show the location of the meeting, the name of the organization and / or people that you are meeting, as well as the purpose of the meeting (ie/ sales, cold call, delivery).  Make sure that you track the mileage as well.  This way when the CRA questions the high claims, you can show them with 100% certainty that your travel claims are for work purposes.

It also helps to keep all the gas transactions on the same credit card for organizational purposes.

It takes a little effort and organization but it’s worth it.

Intaxicating Tax Services can be found @ http://www.intaxicating.ca and make sure to drop by our helpful blog here.

CRA Tightening the ship and tightening their grip…

Income tax
Income tax (Photo credit: Alan Cleaver)

I’m sure you have heard that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)is tightening the ship and cracking down on tax evasion, tax shelters and finding new ways to collect more tax dollars.  Well you can thank the IRS for that.  With the IRS predicting that there are billions and billions of dollars of offshore tax revenue that they expect to bring in through FATCA it’s no wonder revenue agencies throughout the world are looking at better ways to collect tax revenues from their citizens here and abroad.

Riding the wave of FATCA, the CRA has been making public information on ways they can collect tax revenues and highlight some techniques they have been using as far back as when I worked in the CRA but may not have been so widely known to the general public.  The point is that if you know all the powers the CRA has, and know they are cracking down, then you can conclude pretty quickly that you will get caught doing whatever you may be doing that is illegal; not remitting or reporting GST/HST, accepting cash for work and not reporting it, paying an employee under the table, not declaring all your income or just not filing and hoping to stay under the radar.

The CRA’s Snitch line / Informant Leads line has been a fantastic resource for the CRA and has brought in more leads than they ever could have anticipated when creating this line.

So what is the CRA doing that you might not know about?

Data Mining

The CRA can, and have been data mining publicly available property tax information to confirm that sales or transfers of real property have been properly reported by taxpayers and they are using this information to identify taxpayers who are incorrectly reporting property sales at the preferential capital gains tax rate, or who have been flipping properties for quick gain and should be reporting them as sale of inventory, or they have been aggressively claiming properties as their principal residences and avoiding paying taxes altogether.

Tax slip matching

Advances in technology now allow the CRA to quickly determine whether a taxpayer has reported all income listed on all tax slips. Every entity, whether it as a corporation, trust, financial institution or employer is required to issue a tax information slip to all its income recipients. Typically, the area where the CRA reassesses a tax return is on unreported employment income and interest and dividends. The CRA also focuses on sales of marketable securities reported to them on the T5008 information slip. If you’ve mis-reported income multiple times, you are subject to penalties which in some cases are as high as 20% of the omitted amount. For low income earners, this can add up to more than the tax itself.

The Construction Industry

The CRA has always been concerned about construction workers not reporting all of their income which is why they piloted and maintain “Construction Teams” in the Tax Services Offices.  The new information reporting requirement on form T5018, provides the CRA the ability to ensure the proper amount of tax is being paid by construction workers and frequent audits ensure payments to workers and amounts they reported fall in line as well.

Tax shelters / Off-shore Accounts

What was once considered a safe haven where wealthy investors could put monies out of reach of their governments has now become a bone of contention as investors want to pay as little tax as possible, governments want as much tax as possible – especially from these high net-worth people and the general public want the wealthy to pay more taxes!  FATCA got the ball rolling and now the CRA has followed suit, seeking information of the investors before then taxing them back on their offshore accounts.

Tax shelters, while shielding investors from paying tax on current income, likely will have to pay taxes at some point in time down the road as the CRA tightens the regulations on these investment tools to ensure they are not tax evading schemes.

Illegal activity / Informant Leads (Snitch) Line

The CRA has its ears on the ground more than ever and the Canadian Border Services Agency (who used to be part of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency) are locating and turning up illegal activity and the CRA is following up that criminal activity with assessments and re-assessments.  Combine that with the Informant Leads line and you can quickly conclude that to the CRA crime does not pay, but criminals should pay taxes too.

Charitable donations

The CRA’s reach extends to the charitable sector as well.  Both donors and registered charities are heavily scrutinized for potential fraud especially around those donating non-cash gifts.  The CRA is looking to ensure that the amount reported on the donation receipt (and the corresponding credit claimed by the donor) accurately corresponds to the value of the donated item, and that the value is as close to fair market value as possible.

The CRA has been using these techniques for years to ensure taxpayers are paying their fair share on all sources of income and are doing so without increasing the number of employees dramatically which means a few things;  First, it may be worthwhile to review your previous filings and – if errors are identified as a result of that review – take advantage of the voluntary disclosure program.  Second, in the voluntary tax system we have in Canada, the onus is on you, the taxpayer to prove to the CRA that you are operating in line with CRA regulations which means keeping great records, having professional help and keeping receipts.  Thirdly, if you are off-side with CRA regulations and want to know what may happen to you if you get caught, you should give us a call.

Employee or self-employed worker? Federal Court of Appeal’s 2-Step Process.

[109/365] Taxation.
Taxation. (Photo credit: kardboard604)
It is important to determine whether a worker is an employee or a self-employed individual.  Employment status directly affects a person’s entitlement to employment insurance (EI) benefits under the Employment Insurance Act.  It can also have an impact on how a worker is treated under other legislation such as the Canada Pension Plan and the Income Tax Act (ITA).

The facts of the working relationship as a whole determine the employment status.  If the worker is an employee (employer-employee relationship), the payer is considered an employer.  Employers are responsible for deducting Canada Pension Plan (CPP) contributions, EI premiums, and income tax from remuneration or other amounts they pay to their employees. They have to remit these deductions along with their share of CPP contributions and EI premiums to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

An employer who fails to deduct the required CPP contributions or EI premiums has to pay both the employer’s share and the  employee’s share of any contributions and premiums owing, plus penalties and interest.

If the worker is a self-employed individual and in a business relationship, he or she is considered to have a business.

The best way to be sure if there is any doubt is to request a ruling from the CRA.  A ruling determines whether a worker is an employee or is self-employed, and whether that worker’s employment is pensionable or insurable. If you have a payroll account and are registered on My Business Account, you can use the “Request a CPP/EI ruling” service in My Business Account.

As well, an authorized representative for the payer can also request a ruling electronically through the Authorized Representatives Section of the CRA website, here.

A payer or a worker can request a ruling by sending a letter or a completed Form CPT1, Request for a Ruling as to the Status of a Worker Under the Canada Pension Plan and/or the Employment Insurance Act, to their tax services office (TSO).

Recently, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA), in the case of 1392644 Ontario Inc. (Connor Homes) v. Canada (National Revenue), 2013 FCA 85 (CanLII) weighed in to reconcile competing tests on the proper way to determine whether an individual is a contractor or truly an employee through a 2-step process.

This appeal in this case  involved 3 women who worked for Connor Homes, a licensed operator of foster homes and group homes for children with serious behavioural and developmental disorders, as area supervisors and/or child and youth workers.  Each worked under a contract that stipulated she was an independent contractor “responsible for payment of all necessary remittances, including CPP, EI and Taxes”.  Each was paid at a specified hourly rate or flat rate that depended on the service provided and provided those services in accordance with the homes’ policies and procedures manual.

The CRA ruled that each of these workers were engaged in employment for purposes of the Canada Pension Plan and the Employment Insurance Act., which Connor Homes disagreed with.

In hearing the appeal, the FCA commented that the question of an individual’s working status has become increasingly important with the trend towards outsourcing and short-term contracts and the consequent effect on entitlements to Employment Insurance and Canada Pension Plan benefits. The Court also acknowledged that although the question is simple in theory, it is difficult to apply with any degree of certainty given its fact specific nature and the ever-changing workplace.

Many employers also tend to categorize employees as independent contractors so they are not responsible for withholding and remitting CPP, EI and Tax to the CRA on behalf of the employee and to avoid being responsible for benefits.  If the CRA determines  otherwise, the employer is responsible for both the employer and the employee portions of CPP, EI and tax (plus P&I) until they are current.

The FCA refined a number of lower court decisions into a two-part test;

1st step: Is there a mutual understanding or common intention between the parties regarding their relationship? This step generally will be determined by the written contractual arrangements and behaviour of the parties and is quite subjective.  For example, is there a written agreement, were invoices issued for services rendered, was the service provider registered for GST/HST, were the income tax filings consistent with that of an independent contractor?

If so, then;

2nd step:  Do the pertinent facts support that the worker is providing services as a business on her own account?  The factors to consider include the level of control exercised over the worker’s activities, and whether the worker provides her own equipment, hires helpers, manages and assumes financial risk, and has an opportunity of profit in the performance of her tasks.  This step is very objective.

In this appeal, the FCA found that, although the parties intended their relationship to be that of independent contractors, they were, in fact, employees.  The degree of control exercised over their work was the same as that exercised over employees, they were limited in what they could earn and they took on no financial risks.  Although the individuals were expected to use their own motor vehicles, this factor was insufficient to outweigh all others.

So if after this ruling and after a review of the CRA website, you are still unsure if you, or your worker is an employee or an independent contractor, then it’s best to get a ruling to be sure.