Axamit Versa Inc. v. The King, 2022 CCI 163

The ARQ denied input tax credits claimed by the appellant (“Axamit”) for its 2015 year regarding GST charged by its landlord. Axamit did not provide any document specifically listed in the Input Tax Credit Information (GST/HST) Regulations to the ARQ during the audit or following its filing of its Notice of Objection. However, Gagnon J, after referring to the similar finding in CFI Funding that s. 169(4) “simply provides that the registrant must have obtained the prescribed information in a form that will allow the ITCs to be determined” and that “[h]ow that information is obtained does not matter,” found that it was unnecessary that the GST registration number be set out in a document issued by the landlord, stating (at paras. 50, 53, TaxInterpretations translation):

[I]t does not appear appropriate that the scope of general wording of the preamble to the definition of supporting documentation in the Regulations be limited to the enumeration following the preamble. To the contrary, the text of the preamble allows for the flexibility that Parliament intended. The word "document" in the French version and the word "form" in the English version reflect this choice. The word document [“record” in English] is [broadly] defined in subsection 123(1) … .

[T]he testimony of Appellant's president confirmed that the information for Landlord's GST number included in Appellant's Exhibit Book was obtained as early as 2013 and provided to the external accountants. The Court considers this testimony to be credible … . Appellant had therefore obtained this information prior to the filing of the 2015 annual return containing the claimed ITC. The condition for obtaining the GST number does not require any particular form or that this information be provided to the Agency in order for the Court to grant the appeal.

The ARQ denied input tax credits claimed by Axamit for its 2015 year regarding GST charged by its landlord, because Axamit had not provided the ARQ with any document issued by the landlord as the ARQ considered to be required by the definition in Input Tax Credit Information (GST/HST) Regulations of “supporting documentation.” However, Gagnon J accepted the testimony of Axamit’s president that it had provided the landlord’s GST registration number to its external accountants in 2013, i.e., before they prepared its 2015 return and claimed the ITC.

In allowing Axamit’s appeal, he followed the finding in CFI Funding (quoted at para. 45) that s. 169(4) “simply provides that the registrant must have obtained the prescribed information in a form that will allow the ITCs to be determined” and that “[h]ow that information is obtained does not matter.”

In indicating that this finding was not altered by s. 223(2), Gagnon J stated (at para. 54):

[S]ubsection 223(2) does not add a condition to the provisions of ETA paragraph 169(4)(a). The application of that subsection is subject to the discretion of the purchaser. This provision does not therefore apply in all circumstances. It is a means by which a recipient can induce its supplier to provide information in support of its ITC claim. Failure by the supplier to cooperate exposes it to penalties under the ETA. The recipient is not required to exercise the right under subsection 223(2).

The ARQ denied input tax credits claimed by Axamit for its 2015 year regarding GST charged by its landlord, because Axamit had not provided the ARQ with any document issued by the landlord as the ARQ considered to be required by the definition in the Input Tax Credit Information (GST/HST) Regulations of “supporting documentation.” However, Gagnon J accepted the testimony of Axamit’s president that it had provided the landlord’s GST registration number to its external accountants in 2013, i.e., before they prepared its 2015 return and claimed the ITC.

In allowing Axamit’s appeal, he followed the finding in CFI Funding (quoted at para. 45) that s. 169(4) “simply provides that the registrant must have obtained the prescribed information in a form that will allow the ITCs to be determined” and that “[h]ow that information is obtained does not matter,” and further stated (at para. 50, TaxInterpretations translation) that “it does not appear appropriate that the scope of general wording of the preamble to the definition of supporting documentation in the Regulations be limited to the enumeration following the preamble.”