DOCKET: 2011-1950(GST)I
BETWEEN:
9088-2945 QUÉBEC INC.,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal
heard on January 11, 2013, at Montréal, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice B. Paris
Appearances:
|
Counsel for the appellant:
|
Edouard Robert
|
|
Counsel for the respondent:
|
Pier-Olivier Julien
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessments issued in
relation to the goods and services tax under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act,
for periods from March 1, 2005, to August 31, 2008, is allowed in part
and the assessments in issue will be referred back to the Minister to delete the
penalties, in accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 19th day of February 2013.
"B.Paris"
Translation certified true
On this 28th day of March 2013
Catherine Jones,
Translator
Citation: 2013 TCC 58
Date: 20130209
Docket: 2011-1950(GST)I
BETWEEN:
9088-2945 QUÉBEC INC.,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Paris J.
[1]
This is an appeal under
the informal procedure from a series of assessments made under the Excise
Tax Act for periods from March 1, 2005, to August 31, 2008. The Minister
of National Revenue (the Minister) disallowed the appellant input tax credits
(ITC) of $7,790.21. The Minister also imposed gross negligence penalties under
section 285 of the Act.
[2]
In making the
assessments, the Minister assumed that certain services that the appellant had
claimed ITC for were not actually provided to the appellant or, if they had
been provided, that they were not provided by the companies appearing on the
invoices given to the appellant. In short, the Minister assumed that the
invoices were accommodation invoices that were part of a tax evasion scheme.
[3]
The appellant operates
a residential construction business in Sorel, Quebec. According to Jean
Cournoyer, director of the appellant, who testified at the hearing, its annual
sales are between $10,000,000 and $15,000,000.
[4]
In 2005, the appellant
was looking for a drywall installer to work on one of its projects. Mr. Cournoyer
asked some acquaintances in the field if they could recommend someone. He was
given the name of Yves Séguin, who apparently worked for at least two companies
known by Mr. Cournoyer.
[5]
In March 2005, the
appellant hired Mr. Séguin’s company, Gypses et Joints P.D.M. (9123‑1704
Québec Inc.). Mr. Cournoyer said that he was satisfied with the work of
Mr. Séguin and his team and continued to hire this company for other projects
during the following months. After a while, Mr. Séguin told Mr. Cournoyer
that he would be using another company to invoice the work, under the pretext
that he was about to get a divorce and that he wanted to change companies.
Mr. Séguin stated that this new company, Systèmes intérieurs Rocky Inc., was
also owned by him.
[6]
During approximately
three and a half consecutive years, Mr. Séguin used five different company
names to invoice his services. According to Mr. Cournoyer, Mr. Séguin
seemed to have personal problems often, which led him to use these new
companies and he always had plausible explanations for these changes. Mr. Cournoyer
gave the example that Mr. Séguin had to start a new company with an
associate because he did not have enough money to continue operating his own
company.
[7]
Mr. Cournoyer pointed
out that the appellant’s controller, Sonia Leroux, checked every time with the
Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Revenue Quebec (MRQ) that the
registration numbers given by Mr. Séguin for his companies were valid.
[8]
However, it seems that
the five companies that invoiced the appellant did not belong to Mr. Séguin
and that he was not the director or shareholder of any of them. This fact was
not disputed by the appellant and Mr. Séguin did not testify. The
appellant did not submit any other evidence, neither to show that Mr. Séguin
had some interest in the five companies in question nor to show that he was
linked in any way whatsoever to these companies.
[9]
I find that Mr. Séguin’s
statements to Mr. Cournoyer that he owned these companies were clearly
false and that the companies whose names and registration numbers appeared on
the invoices given to the appellant by Mr. Séguin provided no services to
the appellant.
[10]
It is also clear from
the testimony of MRQ auditor, Guy Leclerc, that the five companies in question never
remitted to the taxation authorities any GST or QST or file income tax returns.
Mr. Leclerc also noted that all the cheques issued by the appellant to
these companies were cashed at cheque-cashing services.
[11]
The respondent’s
counsel argued that the appellant failed to prove that Mr. Seguin himself
provided services to the appellant and that all the invoices in question were
accommodation invoices.
[12]
However, the testimony
of Mr. Cournoyer persuades me that Mr. Séguin and his team performed
all the work indicated in the invoices. Mr. Cournoyer seemed to me to be
very credible and his credibility was not disputed by counsel for the
respondent. Nothing suggested that the appellant or its shareholders had
received part of the payments made to the five companies, or that they profited
in any manner whatsoever from this scheme. I accept that the appellant was a
victim and not a participant in this scheme. In my view, it is implausible that
a company with annual sales between $10,000,000 and $15,000,000 and that never
had any problems with the tax authorities voluntarily participated in a scam of
$10,000 spread over a three-year period.
[13]
Counsel for
the appellant claims that if I accept that the work was really done, the appellant
should be eligible for the ITC in question.
[14]
Unfortunately,
in light of the recent case law of this Court and the Federal Court of Appeal, I
cannot accept this argument.
[15]
In the recent decision Comtronic
Computer Inc.,
where the facts were very similar to those in this case, Justice Boyle of this
Court decided that it was mandatory that the GST registration number that appears
in the invoices be the one assigned to the supplier. At paragraphs 24 et seq.,
he stated:
[24] Subsection 169(4)
is clear that an ITC cannot be claimed unless the claimant has obtained prescribed
information. Section 3 of the Regulations is clear that the
prescribed information must include the name of the supplier or the name under
which the supplier does business, and the registration number assigned to the
supplier.
[25] The
Federal Court of Appeal in Systematix Technology Consultants Inc. v. Canada,
2007 FCA 226 (CanLII), 2007 FCA 226, [2007] G.S.T.C. 74, had occasion to
consider this very issue in circumstances where an ITC claim had been made in
similarly unfortunate circumstances where, for various reasons, the suppliers
did not have valid GST registration numbers. The Court of Appeal wrote:
4 We
are of the view that the legislation is mandatory in that it requires
persons who have paid GST to suppliers to have valid GST registration
numbers from those suppliers when claiming input tax credits.
[Emphasis added.]
[26] Given
the wording of paragraph 169(4)(a), as well as the Reasons for
Judgment of Archambault J. in the Tax Court ( 2006 TCC 277 (CanLII), 2006 TCC
277, [2006] G.S.T.C. 120) with which the Federal Court of Appeal agreed, I take
the court’s reference to "valid GST registration numbers from those suppliers" to mean GST registration numbers validly assigned to those
suppliers.
[16]
I agree with Justice Boyle
that the GST number that appears on an invoice must be validly assigned to this
supplier for the appellant to be entitled to an ITC.
Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the requested ITC. Justice Boyle recognized that this requirement
could lead to injustices, but that the issue of the injustice had to be examined
by Parliament and not the Court.
[29]
… I should note, however, that (as noted by Archambault J. of this Court in
deciding the Systematix case at first instance) this strict approach can
result in unfairness to a purchaser who pays the GST in good faith. It leaves
Canadian businesses bearing the risk of fraud, identity theft, and wrongdoing
and effectively requires them to put into place risk management practices in
dealing with new and continuing suppliers to identify supplier information that
may require further investigation. A result such as this may prove harsh and
unfair but it is open to Parliament to legislate such a regime and I am bound
to apply that legislation as it has already been interpreted by the Federal
Court of Appeal.
[17]
The second issue is
whether the Minister was correct in imposing a penalty under section 285 of
the Act. This article applies when a person "knowingly, or under circumstances amounting
to gross negligence, makes or participates in, assents to or acquiesces in the
making of a false statement or omission in a return, application, form,
certificate, statement, invoice or answer".
[18]
The burden of proof
with respect to the penalty is on the respondent. In my view, she did not discharge
her burden. First, the evidence persuades me, as I have already stated, that
the appellant was a victim of a scheme perpetrated by Mr. Séguin and other
unknown individuals. The evidence also shows that the appellant’s controller verified all the registration
numbers provided by Mr. Séguin, and made sure that they were all valid. In
the circumstances, since the people who recommended Mr. Séguin were people
that Mr. Cournoyer knew and who had hired Mr. Séguin themselves
without a problem, I do not believe that the appellant had to do more to establish
a link between Mr. Séguin and the companies he was using to invoice his services.
In these circumstances, I cannot find that the appellant’s conduct shows indifference
with respect of the Act that would result in gross negligence penalties (see Venne
v The Queen).
It is true that the fact that Mr. Séguin used five companies in a row
could have raised suspicions and Mr. Cournoyer admitted that he began to
ask Mr. Séguin more questions about it. But he also said that the reasons
given by Mr. Séguin were still plausible. This testimony was not contradicted.
[19]
For all these reasons, the
appeal is allowed in part and the assessments in issue are referred back to the
Minister to delete the penalties.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 19th day of February 2013.
"B.Paris"
Translation certified true
On this 28th day of March 2013
Catherine Jones, Translator
Email this Content