Why to check your tax return, even if a professional prepared it

Article content material

Many Canadians will doubtless agree that our tax system is overly complicated, which is why thousands and thousands rent an accountant or tax skilled to organize their tax returns every year. However, simply since you rent a professional to organize your return, doesn’t imply you’re not absolutely accountable — and finally liable — for the knowledge contained inside it.

Take this latest Tax Court docket choice, determined in early October, involving a taxpayer who was reassessed by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) past the traditional reassessment interval for her 2012 and 2013 tax returns. Below the Earnings Tax Act, the CRA is usually prohibited from reassessing a person taxpayer greater than three years after the unique reassessment, until it may be proven that the taxpayer made “a false assertion attributable to misrepresentation arising from carelessness, neglect or wilful default.”

Article content material

Returns past the traditional reassessment interval are thought-about to be “statute barred.”

The taxpayer retired after many years working in senior care houses, initially as a healthcare aide, and finally as a certified private assist employee. She grew up in Jamaica and had a Grade 6 degree training. She had all the time employed an expert tax preparer to finish her annual revenue tax returns as she did “not really feel sufficiently educated of tax issues” to correctly put together her personal returns.

Round 2009, among the taxpayer’s work colleagues beneficial she begin utilizing a sure tax preparer for her returns, as he had ready returns for a lot of of them. On account of their suggestions, the taxpayer engaged this tax preparer’s companies for a number of years, together with for each her 2012 and 2013 private tax returns.

Round 2016, the taxpayer realized that quite a few this tax preparer’s purchasers, together with a few of her co-workers, have been having bother with the CRA almost about their tax filings. The taxpayer didn’t need any bother, so she promptly stopped utilizing this explicit tax preparer going ahead. It seems that the tax preparer was concerned in making “unsubstantiated claims,” on taxpayer returns, and likewise solid receipts to decrease his purchasers’ taxes.

Article content material

Article content material

The taxpayer’s 2012 and 2013 tax returns have been initially assessed on Nov. 12, 2013, and Nov. 10, 2014, respectively. The three-year regular reassessment durations for her 2012 and 2013 taxation years expired on Nov. 12, 2016, and Nov. 10, 2017, respectively. Each years’ returns ought to have been thought-about statute barred.

However, on March 12, 2019, the CRA reassessed the taxpayer for each years, alleging that she had “made misrepresentations which can be attributable to neglect, carelessness or wilful default or fraud … when she claimed … disallowed rental bills/losses, employment bills and charitable deductions.”

The CRA claimed that the taxpayer’s “non-review of her returns earlier than signing” was proof supporting that the taxpayer made misrepresentations in her tax returns that have been “attributable to neglect on her half.” In cross-examination, when the taxpayer was requested, “Did you overview your 2012 tax submitting earlier than it was submitted to Canada Income Company?” She answered, “No. (My tax preparer) does it on his pc … he places them collectively, and he put just a little X, and he stated, ‘Signal your title right here.’ … as a result of if I have a look at it, I wouldn’t perceive something anyway.”

Article content material

The taxpayer had claimed rental losses of $7,862 (2012) and $8,165 (2013), primarily based on her renting out a portion of her principal residence, employment bills of $8,936 (2012) and $6,452 (2013), regarding her use of her automobile for work, and non-refundable tax credits in respect of charitable donations of $2,660 (2012) and $2,240 (2013) that she made to her church.

On the trial, the CRA conceded that the taxpayer did, certainly, make the charitable donations to her church as claimed in her 2012 and 2013 returns, and that funds of sure family bills, together with property tax, cable and web, utilities and insurance have been certainly paid by the taxpayer.

However within the taxpayer’s 2012 return, she claimed $2,825 for renovations performed in her basement. However when requested if she incurred that expense, the taxpayer responded “I didn’t inform him (i.e., the tax preparer) that.” The decide remarked that the taxpayer “would have acknowledged this as a improper assertion had she reviewed her 2012 return earlier than signing it, and letting it’s submitted.”

As well as, in each her 2012 and 2013 returns, automobile mileage was reported as an employment expense. The taxpayer testified that the mileage figures have been her tax preparer’s figures not hers. In each her 2012 and 2013 tax returns, she is proven as stating that each one (100 per cent) of her complete kilometres pushed in her automobile for the 12 months have been “to earn employment revenue.” The decide discovered it to be “extremely questionable” that the taxpayer by no means drove her automobile at the least a bit for private functions, similar to to go to household or mates, to attend church, or to buy groceries.

Article content material

Prior authorized circumstances discovered that neglect refers to “a scarcity of cheap care,” and the Tax Court docket has beforehand discovered that “a failure to overview a tax return earlier than signing it might represent neglect or carelessness.”

In consequence, the decide concluded that the false renovation, together with the 100 per cent mileage declare have been “misrepresentations” in each of the taxpayer’s 2012 and 2013 returns, and that they have been attributable to neglect on the a part of the taxpayer, “the neglect being her not having reviewed both of the topic returns earlier than signing and submitting.”

Thus the decide concluded that the 2 returns weren’t statute-barred and might be reassessed by the CRA past the traditional reassessment interval. Accordingly, the 2 appealed reassessments have been referred again to the CRA to permit the charitable donation credit, in addition to among the bills paid for the rental property, however the inappropriate bills claimed have been disallowed.

Jamie Golombek, FCPA, FCA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Property Planning with CIBC Personal Wealth in Toronto. Jamie.Golombek@cibc.com.

In the event you favored this story, join extra within the FP Investor publication.

Bookmark our web site and assist our journalism: Don’t miss the enterprise information you want to know — add financialpost.com to your bookmarks and join our newsletters here.

Article content material