REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT
Jorré J.
[1]
These two appeals were heard on common evidence.
The appellants appeal from reassessments with respect to the 2009 taxation year.
[2]
Although the name “fiscal arbitrator” did not
come up at the hearing these cases look a lot like cases that have been referred
to as “fiscal arbitrator” cases.
[3]
The reassessments disallowed substantial
deductions claimed on line 232, “Other deductions”.
In the tax return of each party after the word “specify”
on the preprinted form, the words “DUE TO ANIMATOR AS
AGENT” were added to the form.
[4]
In the case of Rasper, the deduction claimed was $87,109.66. In the case of Peace, the
amount claimed was $50,698.79.
[5]
As a result of these deductions on line 232, the
appellants filed returns claiming that they were not liable to any federal or Ontario income tax whatsoever and claiming a refund of all tax withheld.
[6]
In support of this claim at Tab 1 of
Exhibits R-1 and R-2, respectively, are documents entitled “Notice of Usage” (at page 4) and “Annual
Statement for Agent’s Activities” (at page 5).
[7]
These documents are meaningless. For example, in
the case of Rasper, Rasper is both the agent and the animator and, based on
nonsensical calculations, the “Annual Statement for
Agent’s Activities” concludes that Rasper, as animator, owes Rasper, as
agent, $87,109.66. This amount of $87,109.66 is then claimed on line 232.
[8]
There is absolutely no doubt that the appellants
are not entitled to these deductions.
[9]
The Minister of National Revenue (Minister) also
imposed gross negligence penalties on the appellants pursuant to subsection
163(2) of the Income Tax Act.
[10]
The appellants’ evidence was that they relied on
a tax expert named Roger who prepared their returns and whose family name they
could not remember at the hearing.
[11]
They gave Roger the information he asked them
for, including T4 slips, and their bank statements, including Interac
transactions.
[12]
The evidence is quite clear that the appellants
simply relied on Roger. They did not read or review their returns. All they did
was sign where Roger told them to sign.
[13]
The appellants also paid Roger 20% of their
refunds for his services.
[14]
Rasper testified that he was happy when he got
his refund.
[15]
Rasper works as a registered practical nurse and
as a nurse. He obtained a college degree in economics from the University of Ghana and a master’s degree in governance and administration from the University of Antwerp.
[16]
He has a diploma in nursing from Humber College and has subsequently taken courses in the nursing field.
[17]
Peace works as a personal support worker. She
completed secondary school in Ghana and took a personal support worker course
at a college in Canada.
[18]
The law in this area has recently been
thoroughly canvassed by Justice C. Miller in Torres v. The Queen,
2013 TCC 380. There is no need for me to repeat what was said there.
[19]
There is no doubt that there was a misstatement on
line 232.
[20]
A conclusion that there was wilful blindness by
the appellants is unavoidable and, as a consequence, they
were clearly grossly negligent.
[21]
We live in a self-assessment system and the
appellants made no effort to verify the accuracy of their returns.
[22]
Yet, had they made any effort, there would have
been numerous red flags on reading the returns prepared by Roger.
[23]
Just to give some examples, on the “Annual Statement for Agent’s Activities” at the top, I
find it impossible to accept that they would not have had doubts about the
description of the service provided as “Agent as a
Transmitting Utility” or that they would not have had doubts about the
existence of the contract referred to. More generally, I cannot believe that,
if they made any effort to comprehend their returns, they would not have
questioned this whole bizarre relationship where they are apparently dealing
with themselves as both animator and agent.
[24]
Finally, another example of a red flag is the
wording added to the signature page of the tax returns, just to the right of
the signature, which says:
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-308, NON ASSUMP SIT CONTRACT,
WITHOUT COMPREHENSION
Done for the Agent by the Animator
[25]
In their circumstances, it is hard to understand
how the appellants came to sign their returns. The complete failure to ask any
questions or review the returns, when only a little effort would have raised
several red flags, clearly shows wilful blindness.
[26]
Accordingly, the Minister’s reassessments are
correct and the appeals will be dismissed.
[27]
Before concluding, I should deal briefly with
two matters.
[28]
First, the appellants suggested that the Canada
Revenue Agency was at fault because it had a duty of care to prevent them from
getting refunds to which they were not entitled and, accordingly, they should
not be penalized.
[29]
This argument is unfounded. The penalties under
subsection 163(2) would be applicable even if the Canada Revenue Agency had
intercepted the claims and had never paid the refunds. It does not require that
the taxpayer actually benefit from the false statement.
[30]
Further, the section imposes a penalty if two
elements are met. There must be a false statement and that statement must have
been made knowingly or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence. Both
requirements are met here.
[31]
Second, the appellants alleged that they were
facing hardships and asked that that be taken into account.
[32]
I appreciate that the penalties are severe ones;
however, as I said at the hearing, that is not something I can consider. The
only question I can decide on the penalties is whether they are well founded or
not. I cannot adjust the amount.
Signed at Ottawa, Ontario, this 28th day of May 2014.
“Gaston Jorré”
Email this Content