Citation: 2011 TCC 409
Date: 20110831
Docket: 2010-2836(IT)I
BETWEEN:
KRISTINA PERUSCO,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
D'Auray J.
[1]
This is an
appeal by Kristina Perusco in respect of an assessment under the Income Tax
Act (ITA) for her 2008 taxation year. The appeal concerns a penalty
that the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) imposed for the
appellant’s failure to report income in more than one taxation year, pursuant
the subsection 163(1) of the ITA.
[2]
Subsection
163(1) of the ITA applies to taxpayers who fail to report income for two
taxation years within a four year period. It makes such taxpayers subject to a
penalty equal to 10 percent of the unreported income in the most recent
taxation year. In the present appeal, the penalty amounts to $2,780.
[3]
Ms. Perusco
was represented at the hearing by an agent, namely an accountant from the accounting
firm which prepared the tax returns of the appellant and her family.
[4]
The appellant
did not argue due diligence. Instead she submitted that no penalty should be
imposed because the income which she failed to report was stated in her employer’s
T4 and the appropriate tax withheld. More fundamentally she submitted that subsection
163(1) of the ITA should be struck out on the basis that its application
violates both section 7 and section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms (Charter).
Facts
[5]
At the time
of the hearing, the appellant was 26 years old. She studied in sociology and
psychology.
[6]
During the
year under appeal, she was employed by the Hudson’s Bay Company (Hudson’s Bay) in
their future executive program. Under the program, she had to work for all three
banners of the Hudson’s Bay’s, The Bay, Zellers and Home
Outfitters. At the time of the hearing, she was still studying.
[7]
She
testified that she was not familiar with the tax system. She did not open
envelopes sent to her by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). Instead, she handed
all papers related to her taxes to her father who, in turn, gave them to the
family accountant’s, Deacur & Associates. She signed her income tax returns,
but did not review them before signing. She stated that she simply signed when her
father told her it was time to sign.
[8]
She testified
that in 2008 she only worked for Zellers and could not remember seeing a T4
from the Hudson’s Bay.
[9]
She did not
dispute that she failed to report certain income in both her 2007 and her 2008
tax returns. In 2007, she failed to include an eligible dividend of $660. In
2008, she failed to include employment income in the amount of $27,804 received
from the Hudson’s Bay.
[10]
Mr. Allan Gordon
testified on behalf of the appellant. He is a chartered accountant and an
associate with Deacur & Associates. In his testimony, he compared the penalty
under subsection 163(1) with that under subsection 163(2). What emerged from
his testimony was that in the appellant’s case, subsection 163(1) resulted in a
higher penalty than would have been the case had a penalty been imposed under
subsection 163(2). In other words, the appellant would have been assessed a
lesser penalty if she had been assessed under subsection 163(2) for having been
grossly negligent. See Exhibit A-4.
[11]
Mr. Leroy Evans,
a litigation officer at the CRA testified on behalf of the respondent. In his
testimony, he explained how the penalty for the 2008 taxation year was
calculated. His calculation of the penalty was not disputed by the appellant. He
stated that the amount of penalties under subsections 163(1) and 163(2) will
depend on the circumstances of each case.
Position of the appellant
[12]
The appellant
raised two arguments. First, she submitted that since her employment income was
reported in the T4 slip issued by her employer, the Hudson’s Bay, and since source
deductions were withheld on the income and remitted to CRA, she should not have
been assessed a penalty under 163(1).
[13]
The appellant’s
second argument was that subsection 163(1) contravenes sections 7 and 12 of the
Charter. Her position was that the application of subsection 163(2) is unjust
and not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. She also
submitted that the application of 163(1) of the ITA to the appellant amounts to
an unfair, cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
[14]
In support of both branches of her Charter
argument, the appellant contrasts subsection 163(1) with subsection 163(2). The latter
provision requires an intentional element of wrongdoing for a penalty to be
imposed. It applies to taxpayers who “knowingly” or “under circumstances
amounting to gross negligence” make a false statement or omission in a return. By
contrast, subsection 163(1) does not require any intentional element for the
imposition of a penalty. The appellant therefore submits that because subsection 163(1)
involves less serious conduct than subsection 163(2), it is fundamentally
unjust that the penalty under subsection 163(1) can in some cases be greater than
the penalty under subsection 163(2).
Position of the respondent
[15]
In response
to the appellant’s first argument, the respondent pointed out that the case law
has held that a taxpayer cannot avoid a penalty under subsection 163(1) simply
by stating that the employment income was reported by the employer. The
respondent referred to Porter v. The Queen,
where Webb J. stated at paragraph 2 of his judgment:
2 […] It seems to me that
the words "in a return filed under section 150" mean that the
conditions for the imposition of the penalty will be met (subject to a possible
due diligence defence) if an amount of income is not included in a tax return
filed by a taxpayer. Therefore it would not be sufficient for a taxpayer who is
an employee and who fails to report an amount of employment income in his or
tax return to simply state that an amount of employment income was reported by
his or her employer when the employer filed T4 slips. When the employer files
the T4 slips, the amount is reported by the employer not by the employee. The
penalty is imposed upon the person who failed to report the amount of income in
their tax return, who would be the employee in this case.
[16]
With respect to the appellant’s
Charter argument, the respondent cited numerous cases where
the courts have held that the civil penalties under the ITA do not contravene either
sections 7 or 12 of the Charter.
Analysis
[17]
I do not agree with the
appellant’s first argument.
Subsection 163(1) is a strict
liability provision. Once it is proven that a taxpayer failed to report income
in two tax returns filed in two of the last four years, the provision with its
penalty applies unless the taxpayer establishes due diligence. Due diligence is
not met simply because the employment income in issue is indicated in the T4
slips filed by the taxpayer’s employer. It is the taxpayer’s obligation to file
a complete and accurate income tax return. Subsection 163(1) seeks to reinforce
that obligation. In this respect, I agree with and adopt Justice Webb’s reasons
for judgment in Porter.
[18]
I am also of the view
that subsection 163(1) does not contravene the Charter. Therefore, the second argument of the appellant also
fails.
[19]
Subsections 163(1) and
163(2) of the ITA read as follows:
163
(1) Repeated failures [to report income] -- Every person who
(a) fails to report an amount required to be
included in computing the person's income in a return filed under section 150 for
a taxation year, and
(b) had failed to report an amount required to be so
included in any return filed under section 150 for
any of the three preceding taxation years
is liable to a penalty equal to 10% of
the amount described in
paragraph (a), except where the person is liable to a
penalty under subsection (2) in respect of that amount.
163(2) False statements or omissions --
Every person who, knowingly, or
under circumstances amounting to gross negligence, has made or has participated
in, assented to or acquiesced in the making of, a false statement or omission
in a return, form, certificate,
statement or answer (in this section referred to as a "return") filed or made
in respect of a taxation year for the
purposes of this Act, is liable to a penalty of the greater of $100 and 50% of
the total of
(a) the amount, if any, by which
(i) the amount, if any, by which
(A) the tax for the year that would be payable by the person under this Act
exceeds
(B) the amounts that would be deemed by subsections 120(2)
and (2.2)
to have been paid on account of the person's tax for the year
if the person's taxable income for the year
were computed by adding to the taxable income reported by
the person in the person's return for the year that
portion of the person's understatement of income
for the year that is reasonably attributable to the false statement or omission
and if the person's tax payable for the year
were computed by subtracting from the deductions from the tax otherwise payable
by the person for the year such
portion of any such deduction as may reasonably be attributable to the false
statement or omission
exceeds
(ii) the amount, if any, by which
(A) the tax for the year that would have been payable by the person under this Act
exceeds
(B) the amounts that would be deemed by subsections 120(2)
and (2.2)
to have been paid on account of the person's tax for the year
had the person's tax payable for the year
been assessed on the basis of the information provided
in the person's return for the year, […]
[20]
Sections 7 and 12 of the Charter
read:
7. Everyone has the right to
life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived
thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
[…]
12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and
unusual treatment or punishment.
[21]
During the
hearing, the appellant implied that
subsection 163(2) is a criminal provision. It is not. Subsections 163(1) and
163(2) are civil in nature, not criminal. The penalties imposed under them are
likewise civil in nature. The jurisprudence is clear on this point.
[22]
As has been
stated in numerous cases, section 7 of the Charter does not protect purely
economic interests. This point was made in the context of income tax
assessments by Rothstein J.A. in Kaulius v. The Queen where
he stated at paragraphs 29 and 30:
[29] I
will accept that the power of reassessment of a taxpayer implicates the
administration of justice. However, I do not accept that reassessments of
taxpayers result in a deprivation of liberty or security of the person.
[30] If there is a right at issue in the
case of reassessments in income tax, it is an economic right. In Gosselin,
McLachlin C.J.C., for the majority, observed that in Irwin Toy Ltd. v.
Quebec (A.G.), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927 at 1003, Dickson C.J.C., for the
majority, left open the question of whether section 7 could operate to protect
"economic rights fundamental to human [...] survival". However, there
is no suggestion in Gosselin that section 7 is broad enough to encompass
economic rights generally or, in particular, in respect of reassessments of
income tax. I am, therefore, of the view that the appellants have not
demonstrated a deprivation of any right protected by section 7 of the Charter.
[23]
With respect
to section 12 of the Charter, I am of the view that an assessment under 163(1)
is not cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, even if the penalty under
subsection 163(1) is greater than the penalty under 163(2). The test for section
12 is summarized by McLachlin CJC in R. v. Ferguson, at paragraph
14:
[14] The test for whether a particular
sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is whether the sentence is
grossly disproportionate: R. v. Smith, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045. As
this Court has repeatedly held, to be considered grossly disproportionate, the sentence
must be more than merely excessive. The sentence must be “so excessive as to
outrage standards of decency” and disproportionate to the extent that Canadians
“would find the punishment abhorrent or intolerable”: R. v. Wiles,
[2005] 3 S.C.R. 895, 2005 SCC 84, at para. 4, citing Smith, at p. 1072,
and Morrisey, at para. 26. The question thus becomes: is a
four-year sentence of imprisonment grossly disproportionate to the offence of
manslaughter as committed by Constable Ferguson?
[24]
In Mackenzie
v. Canada,[7] Justice Paris of this Court examined
section 12 of the Charter in the context of a penalty under subsection 280(1)
of the ITA. At paragraph 36, he stated:
36
The Appellant's
argument that penalties levied under subsection 280(1) constituted cruel and
unusual treatment or punishment, and therefore breached his rights under
section 12 of the Charter must also fail. The test for determining
whether a penalty is cruel or unusual treatment or punishment is whether the
penalty is "grossly disproportionate in the sense that it is so excessive
as to outrage standards of decency" (see R. v. M. (C.A.), [1996] 1 S.C.R.
500 (S.C.C.). I can see nothing in the imposition of a penalty equal
to 6% of the unpaid amount that would in any sense outrage standards of
decency. A penalty of this magnitude is consistent with a purpose of general
deterrence within the context of a self-reporting tax system.
[25]
In my view, a penalty
of 10% of the amount that a taxpayer omitted to report is not grossly
disproportionate in the sense that it is so excessive as to outrage standards
of decency.
[26]
I am of the view that
even if in some circumstances, the penalty under subsection 163(1) would be greater
that a penalty under subsection 163(2), sections 7 and 12 of the Charter
would not be infringed. The provisions have different requirements. The amount
of the penalty under each will vary with the circumstances of each case. The
penalty under subsection 163(2) will not invariably be less than that under
subsection 163(1). The penalty under subsection 163(2) is cumulative in nature
with the result that it can far exceed the penalty under subsection 163(1). In
these circumstances and for the reasons given above, it cannot be said that the
application of the penalty deprives the appellant of the right to life, liberty
and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in
accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
[27]
The same is also true
for section 12 of the Charter. Even if the penalty in a particular case
is greater under subsection 163(1) than it would have been had subsection
163(2) applied, it cannot be said that this amounts to cruel or unusual treatment
or punishment as contemplated by section 12.
[28]
The appellant did not
argue due diligence. Even if she had, the evidence does not
support a finding that she acted with due diligence. The appellant did not pay
any attention to her T4; did not open the envelopes she received from the CRA;
and did not review her returns before signing them. She simply gave everything
to her father and signed whatever he placed in front of her. As a result, she
failed to report 44% of her income, that is she failed to report $27,804 out of
a total income of $62,235 in her 2008 taxation year. The facts in this appeal are
quite similar to those in Porter
where the Court also rejected an argument of due diligence.
[29]
The appellant is
young. She stated in Court that she will now pay attention to her tax affairs.
Most of the tax payable by the appellant was withheld at source. As counsel for
the respondent pointed out at the hearing, the appellant may ask the Minister
to exercise his discretion under subsection 220(3.1) of the ITA to waive or
cancel all or a portion of the penalty imposed.
[30]
The appeal is
dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 31th day of August 2011.
“Johanne D’Auray”