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

Article content material

Should you’re a enterprise proprietor whose tax state of affairs is considerably advanced, chances are high you rent an accountant to arrange your private and company tax returns.

However beware that you’re nonetheless in the end answerable for ensuring your taxes are completed accurately and all of your revenue is absolutely reported, and also you gained’t be capable to put the blame in your accountant ought to the Canada Revenue Agency come knocking.

Article content material

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

From 2005 by 2009, the company reported gross sales of between $2.2 million and $2.9 million, leading to gross income 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 non-public identify, that was not included within the taxpayer’s revenue for the years from 2006 by 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 could be thought of to be “statute barred” and whether or not gross negligence penalties had been relevant.

Article content material

Article content material

Beneath the Income Tax Act, the CRA is mostly prohibited from reassessing a person taxpayer greater than three years after the unique reassessment, except 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 had been immediately deposited into his private financial institution accounts.

The taxpayer mentioned he used to take his enterprise information, corresponding to invoices, money register slips and mail, to his accountant each two to 3 months, for an estimated whole of 30 instances over the course of the related taxation years. He mentioned 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 full 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 mentioned that whereas the taxpayer might not have had subtle 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 below overview. 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 in the end acknowledged that his revenue for the related taxation years was “considerably underreported” and that he had made no inquiries at any time to verify the appropriateness of the quantities being reported. He additionally acknowledged that his accountant recommended 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 based mostly on the monetary data he had supplied.” He recommended that the misrepresentation within the returns was the fault of the accountant, not himself.

The tax court docket decided it was not enough to easily depend on the accountant with out asking any questions. “(The taxpayer) can’t merely throw his arms up and say that he blindly relied on his accountant, with out making any try at searching for 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 mentioned.

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 mentioned the quantity of revenue that was not reported far exceeded the revenue that was reported. Within the 4 years below overview, the full 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 enchantment and mentioned 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 as a consequence of carelessness or neglect,” including that the taxpayer “didn’t train cheap care to report the right quantity of revenue.”

The decrease court docket additionally mentioned the gross negligence penalties had been justified as a result of the taxpayer’s conduct “fell markedly under what could 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 Court docket of Enchantment, 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 effectively supported by the details, and there was no purpose for it to intervene. The court docket, subsequently, dismissed the enchantment 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.

Should you appreciated this story, join extra within the FP Investor e-newsletter.

Bookmark our web site and help our journalism: Don’t miss the enterprise information it is advisable to know — add financialpost.com to your bookmarks and join our newsletters here.

Article content material