|
Citation: 2008 TCC 446
|
|
Date: 20080730
|
|
Dockets: 2006-1021(GST)I
2006-1022(IT)G
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
RAYNER’S AUTO SALES,
WAYNE RAYNER,
|
|
Appellants,
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
|
|
Respondent.
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Campbell J.
[1] These appeals are
from assessments in respect to Wayne Rayner’s 2000 and 2001 taxation years and
for the period November 28, 2000 to December 31, 2001 in respect to Rayner’s
Auto Sales. The Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) used the net
worth method to add amounts to Wayne Rayner’s reported income for those
taxation years and assessed gross negligence penalties pursuant to subsection
163(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Minister also assessed Rayner’s Auto
Sales for additional goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (“GST/HST”)
for the period under appeal and assessed gross negligence penalties pursuant to
section 285 of the Excise Tax Act. These appeals were heard together on
common evidence.
[2] The parties entered the following Statement of Agreed
Facts:
The parties hereby agree that, for purposes only of these
appeals and any appeals therefrom or any other proceeding taken in these
matters, this Statement of Agreed Facts will be entered as an exhibit and the
facts set out herein are true. The parties also agree that the documents
referred to below on the Appellant’s and Respondent’s List of Documents will be
entered as exhibits and the documents are true copies of the documents they
represent. Either party may adduce other evidence or documents not inconsistent
with this Statement of Agreed Facts.
Issues at Appeal
1.
The
appeal bearing Tax Court number 2006-1022(IT)G (the “Income Tax Appeal”) is in
respect of Wayne Rayner’s 2000 and 2001 taxation years and gross negligence
penalties assessed in each of those years.
2.
The
appeal bearing Tax Court number 2006-1021(GST)I (the “GST Appeal”) is in
respect of Rayner’s Auto Sales Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) assessed between
November 28, 2000 and December 31, 2001 (the “Period”) and a gross
negligence penalty assessed in respect to the GST assessment.
3.
The
parties agree that the Income Tax Appeal and the GST Appeal will be heard
together on common evidence.
4.
In
the Notice of Appeal in the Income Tax Appeal the Appellant puts in issue: the
value of his house (the “House”) used in a net-worth calculation of income; the
amount (if any) of an account receivable from Elmsdale Auto Sales in the 2001
taxation year; and the assessment of gross negligence penalties.
5.
The
parties agree that, as there was no acquisition or disposition of the House
during the relevant times, the value of the House has no effect on the
assessment of the Appellant’s 2000 and 2001 taxation year. Accordingly, the
value of the House is not an issue in the Income Tax Appeal.
6.
The
parties agree that the only remaining issues in the Income Tax Appeal are the
amount (if any) of the account receivable from Elmsdale Auto Sales at the end
of the 2001 taxation year and whether gross negligence penalties for the 2000
and 2001 taxation years should be applied.
7.
In
respect to the GST Appeal, the only issues are the amount of GST assessed
against the Appellant in respect to the amount (if any) of the account
receivable from Elmsdale Auto Sales and whether gross negligence penalties
should be assessed.
Agreed Facts
The
parties agree to the following facts:
8.
In
2001 and 2002, Roxanne Rayner was the spouse of Wayne Rayner.
9.
In
2000 and 2001, Wayne Rayner was the sole proprietor of a used vehicle business
operating as Rayner’s Auto Sales.
10.
Wayne
Rayner controlled the day-to-day operations of Rayner’s Auto Sales.
11.
Wayne
Rayner was a GST registrant with GST Registration No. 129034419RT0001.
12.
Rayner’s
Auto Sales was a GST registrant with GST Registration No. 129034419RT0002.
13.
Wayne
Rayner reported on his income tax returns for the 2000 and 2001 taxation years
business income from Rayner’s Auto Sales as follows:
|
|
|
2000
|
|
2001
|
|
Gross business income
|
|
$231,663
|
|
$637,110
|
|
Net business income
(Loss)
|
|
($23,574)
|
|
($44,296)
|
14.
Wayne
Rayner and Roxanne Rayner reported on their income tax returns total income for
the 2000 and 2001 taxation years as follows:
|
|
|
2000
|
|
2001
|
|
Wayne Rayner (Loss)
|
|
($6,871)
|
|
($29,605)
|
|
Roxanne Rayner
|
|
21,493
|
|
22,063
|
|
Total
|
|
$14,622
|
|
($7,542)
|
15.
Rayner’s
Auto Sales is required by the Excise Tax Act to file its GST/HST returns
on a quarterly basis.
16.
Rayner’s
Auto Sales reported the following GST activity in the Period:
|
Period Ended
|
|
Revenue
|
|
GST
|
|
ITC (input tax credit)
|
|
2000-12-31
|
|
$33,150
|
|
$2,320
|
|
$(4,127)
|
|
2001-03-31
|
|
$131,349
|
|
$8,509
|
|
$(10,569)
|
|
2001-06-30
|
|
$160,305
|
|
$10,894
|
|
$(11,497)
|
|
2001-09-30
|
|
$196,925
|
|
$13,952
|
|
$(16,894)
|
|
2001-12-31
|
|
$211,870
|
|
$14,988
|
|
$(15,037)
|
|
Total
|
|
$733,599
|
|
$50,663
|
|
$(58,124)
|
Agreed
Documents
The
parties agree that the following documents are true copies of the documents
they represent:
1.
The
documents listed on the Appellant’s List of Documents.
2.
The
documents listed on the Respondent’s List of Documents and First Supplemental
List of Documents.
DATED
at the City of Summerside, in the Province of Prince Edward Island, this 25th day of June,
2008.
|
“Jeffery Cormier”
|
|
Jeffery A. Cormier
|
|
Counsel for the Appellant
|
DATED at the City of Vancouver, the Province of British Columbia, this 26th day of June, 2008.
|
John H. Sims Q.C.
|
|
Deputy Attorney
General of Canada
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondent
|
|
“John Gibb-Carsley”
|
|
John Gibb-Carsley
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent
|
|
|
|
Department of Justice
|
|
900 – 840 Howe Street
|
|
Vancouver, British Columbia
|
|
V6Z 2S9
|
|
|
|
Telephone: (604) 775-7495
|
|
Facsimile: (604) 666-2214
|
Per:
This Statement of Agreed
Facts effectively narrowed the issues in these appeals to the following:
1.
whether
an account receivable in the amount of $44,261 (the “Account Receivable”) from
Elmsdale Auto Sales (“Elmsdale”) was properly included in the net worth
calculation of the Appellant’s income in the 2001 taxation year;
2.
whether
the GST calculated on this Account Receivable has been properly assessed; and
3.
whether
the gross negligence penalties have been properly assessed.
[3] When the Minister
resorts to a net worth assessment, it is a last resort method where clearly
other more direct and accurate methods and measurements normally available to
the Minister have failed or are simply impossible to apply. The goal is to
provide an appropriate measurement of a taxpayer’s income over a period of
time. It will be, by its very nature, an imprecise measurement. At paragraph 2
of Bigayan v. The Queen, 2000 DTC 1619, the net worth method was
described as follows:
The net
worth method, as observed in Ramey v. The Queen, 93 DTC 791, is a last
resort to be used when all else fails. Frequently it is used when a taxpayer
has failed to file income tax returns or has kept no records. It is a blunt
instrument, accurate within a range of indeterminate magnitude. It is based on
an assumption that if one subtracts a taxpayer's net worth at the beginning of
a year from that at the end, adds the taxpayer's expenditures in the year,
deletes non-taxable receipts and accretions to value of existing assets, the
net result, less any amount declared by the taxpayer, must be attributable to
unreported income earned in the year, unless the taxpayer can demonstrate otherwise.
It is at best an unsatisfactory method, arbitrary and inaccurate but sometimes
it is the only means of approximating the income of a taxpayer.
[4] The onus, with the
exception of the penalties issue, is for the Appellants to produce credible
evidence to show that the Minister’s resulting assessment is incorrect and that
income and GST have been properly recorded and reported. The Appellants may
attack a net worth assessment by producing evidence in the form of records and
other documents that will satisfactorily establish what the income actually is.
Although this is the preferable method, where records are unavailable:
… the
alternative course open to the appellant was to prove that even on a proper and
complete “net worth” basis the assessments were wrong. (Chernenkoff v.
Minister of National Revenue, 49 DTC 680 at page 683)
The
Appellants cannot avail themselves of the more preferable method because they
failed to maintain accurate books and records and by their own admission they
had no idea what they were doing as it related to proper record keeping
practices.
[5] I
heard evidence from Wayne Rayner, his spouse, Roxanne Rayner, Jaret Adams
and Gerald Adams. The Respondent relied on the evidence of the auditor, Sharon
MacNeill.
[6] Wayne
Rayner is the owner/proprietor of Rayner’s Auto Sales, a used vehicle business
he started in 2000. His spouse was the bookkeeper for the business activities.
Prior to commencing Rayner’s Auto Sales, he was a fisherman. Mr. Rayner
described himself as the “hands-on” individual within Rayner’s Auto Sales. He
travelled most of the time, purchasing vehicles, picking them up and then
returning with those vehicles to sell them from his car lot. He had little
knowledge of the bookkeeping aspect of this business but he did admit on cross-examination
that some cash transactions occurred. He stated that, although he did not do
the banking, it was possible that deposits of 80 or so hundred dollar bills
could be among the deposits. He also admitted that he knew very little concerning
the specifics of the Account Receivable which is at the heart of the issues in
these appeals.
[7] Roxanne
Rayner was the bookkeeper for Rayner’s Auto Sales throughout these periods. She
is a nurse by profession and had no prior training in bookkeeping. She admitted
that she “didn’t really know what I was doing”. She believed that it would be
sufficient if she tracked the vehicle sales and remitted GST and PST. She
completed the bills of sale and all other documentation but it was always based
on information and amounts provided to her by her husband. She stated that
Jaret Adams purchased vehicles from her husband in the months before he
obtained his dealer license by providing Rayner’s Auto Sales with a deposit on
each vehicle he wanted to purchase. The vehicles were held for Elmsdale until
Jaret obtained his dealer license. Roxanne Rayner believed that these deposit
purchases occurred around 2000 – 2001. She explained that these purchases were
not completed until Jaret obtained his license because without this license he
would also have to pay PST on the purchases. She believed that each of these
deposits amounted to a full payment of the purchase price of a vehicle with the
exception of the GST which was paid when the Bills of Sale were completed. She
did not recall when the transfer of vehicle registration to Jaret eventually occurred.
Some of the receipts for these deposits were in the name of Gerald Adams,
Jaret’s father, as the Rayner’s received deposit money from both of them. She
recalled that all of the deposits from Gerald and Jaret Adams were made in cash
and were deposited to the bank account located at the Summerside Credit Union. She
determined that these cash deposits related to Elmsdale by reviewing her sales
book and matching the amounts to the dates of similar deposit amounts, even
though the amounts did not exactly match the amounts of the transactions. She
deducted that the larger cash deposits would be for Elmsdale as most purchasers
paid by cheque. She admitted that she did not know exactly when deposits were
made as she was unaware until after the audit that she had to track the money
going in and out of the bank account.
[8] On
cross-examination, her explanation for all of the invoices in respect to Elmsdale
Auto Sales (Exhibit A-1), being in the same sequence of numbers with no
intervening invoices to any other purchaser during this period, was that these
sales were the only sales by deposit and that the business had numerous bill
books with this particular book being the one she used exclusively for
Elmsdale. While the invoices at Exhibit A-1 reflected the sales with deposits,
the four invoices at Exhibit A-2 were all dated December 28, 2001 and contained
all of the information, including sales price and taxes, on these sales. It was
these four invoices that were provided to the auditor.
[9] Jaret
Adams stated that he got into the auto sales business in June 2001 but that he
did not receive his dealers license to sell and purchase vehicles until
December 21, 2001. His father, Gerald Adams, helped him financially in the
establishment of Elmsdale Auto Sales by giving him various amounts of cash. He
purchased vehicles initially from the Appellants by paying deposits equal to
the purchase price less the applicable taxes. The Appellants held the vehicles
until he obtained his dealers license in December 2001, at which time he paid
the taxes and obtained possession of the vehicles. He testified that he paid
the deposits by cash received from his father and that when he paid the
deposits, he received receipts (part of Exhibit A-1) and eventually paid the
balances to Rayner’s Auto Sales as reflected in the Exhibit A-2 documents.
[10] On
cross-examination, he stated that he purchased the vehicles from the Appellants
in this manner because he did not have his dealers license and it took longer
to obtain it than he expected. He could not explain why the last receipt dated
December 13, 2001 in Exhibit A-1, unlike the others, contained an amount for
GST. He thought that since it occurred during the same week that he obtained
his dealers license that it was an honest mistake. He had no explanation as to
why the prior receipt in Exhibit A-1 was also dated December 13, 2001 but
contained no GST.
[11] Gerald
Adams testified that he loaned his son between $30-$45,000 in cash in 2001 to
purchase vehicles from Rayner’s Auto Sales. His son started to purchase
vehicles in June or July of 2001 from the Appellants. He did not recall any
discussion with his son concerning the payment of tax and when asked if he
loaned additional amounts to his son to settle payment of the taxes he replied
“not that I know of”. He did not recall seeing the Exhibit A-1 documentation or
signing anything.
[12] The
Respondent’s witness, Sharon MacNeill, stated that a review of the Appellant’s
business activities began as a GST audit but because she could not complete a
satisfactory bank deposit analysis it was converted to a net worth assessment.
She stated that all of the Appellants’ records were “over the floor of their
premises and in piles”. Where transactions occurred in cash, no reconciliation
was ever completed in respect to sales invoices. She was unable to match cash
to the invoices as she always had more cash than deposits. The invoices did not
reference whether it was a cash or cheque transaction because Mrs. Rayner
marked “paid” only on each. Therefore, unless she was able to locate the cash
transaction elsewhere, she was unable to resolve these issues. She stated that
sometimes there could be $50-$60,000 in additional cash deposits than could be
accounted for in the sales journal or the invoices. In addition, certain cash
deposits stood out. For example, there was no record of eighty $100 bills and
no invoice to indicate what it was for. She stated that Mrs. Rayner told her
they did not issue receipts respecting the cash transactions. Because she was
unable to reconstruct the sales journal and match the deposits to the journal,
she had no alternative but to switch to the less preferable method of a net
worth assessment. She testified that she did not see any invoices or receipts
similar to those used in Exhibit A-1 for any other customers of Rayner’s Auto
Sales. She was never provided the Exhibit A-1 invoices and receipts during the
audit. In addition, she never saw receipts that did not also record the
appropriate taxes. She noted that these receipts at Exhibit A-1 were
unlike any other receipts used in the business for other customers in both
style and format.
[13] Ms.
MacNeill decided to assess gross negligence penalties based on the following:
1.
The
amounts by which he understated his income in each year was material in
relation to the total income that he reported on his tax returns.
2.
Although
Mrs. Rayner was responsible for the books, she followed the directions of Mr. Rayner.
There were large cash amounts yet no evidence of issued receipts to cash
customers. Mr. Rayner withdrew cash from some cash sales as required for his
travel. However, no reconciliation or controls were implemented to account for
cash sales and withdrawals of cash at the end of the day.
3.
She
found it unusual that a business doing a large amount of cash sales would not
be able to provide receipts and yet be confident that a customer had paid for a
vehicle with no record basis to substantiate this. When she asked Mrs. Rayner
how she was able to identify which amounts originated from Jaret Adams, Mrs.
Rayner advised her that it was her “best estimate”.
4.
Mr.
Rayner was resisting any changes or suggestions to improve upon the record
keeping techniques he was employing.
5.
She
was unable to link invoices or any combination of invoices that would equate to
the cash totals.
[14] On cross-examination, she stated that Jaret Adams
initially told her he always paid the Appellants by cheque in December 2001 for
the vehicle purchases but later he told her it was by cash over a period of
time beginning in June/July 2001. She stated that even if she had received the
invoices (Exhibit A-1) during the audit, she would still be skeptical of this
documentation as it would be unusual to have a separate bill book for Elmsdale
where all receipts were numbered sequentially.
Analysis
[15] The Appellants have admitted that they failed to report
all income that was earned in the business together with the GST collected in
both the 2000 and 2001 taxation years as assessed by the auditor, with the
exception of the one account receivable from Elmsdale in the 2001 taxation
year. This limits the focus of these appeals to whether the Appellant has to
include this account receivable in his income in 2001. Ms. MacNeill was
provided with the four invoices (Exhibit A-2) all dated December 28, 2001
during the course of the audit. These four invoices, totalling $44,261, were
for the sale of seven vehicles and the sale of parts for a Sunfire by the
Appellant, Rayner’s Auto Sales, to Elmsdale. Ms. MacNeill was unable to
reconcile these invoice amounts with the bank deposits for the period
December 28, 2001 and December 31, 2001. In addition the Appellant
recorded the sale and purchase of these same vehicles and parts to Elmsdale on
December 28, 2001.
[16] The documentation at Exhibit A-1 was not provided to
Ms. MacNeill during the net worth assessment but the Appellants produced this
second set of invoices respecting the sales to Elmsdale after the Appellants
filed their objection. These reflected the evidence given by the Appellant
witnesses that Jaret Adams purchased by deposit amounts seven vehicles at
various times between July 23, 2001 and December 13, 2001. The Appellant also
produced eight new receipts, as part of Exhibit A-1, to support payment for
these vehicles. These receipts indicate that it was Jaret’s father, Gerald
Adams, that paid the purchase amounts to the Appellants. The last receipt at
Exhibit A-1 is the eighth receipt, dated December 13, 2001, in the amount
of $4,525 which, unlike the other documents at Exhibit A-1, included an amount
for GST. Also unlike the other documents, there was no corresponding invoice in
Exhibit A-1 to match this receipt. However, it was included in the Exhibit A-2
invoices. It is also interesting to note that the sale of a 1998 Cavalier,
which is listed in the Exhibit A-1 documentation as being sold to Elmsdale, was
not included in the Exhibit A-2 invoices provided to the auditor. Another
factor which is suspect is contained in the Appellants’ own ledger of sales of
purchases which indicates that the Appellants purchased a Volkswagen Beetle
from Mike’s Rebuildables on July 23, 2001, which is the same date listed in the
Exhibit A-1 documentation on which the Appellant sold the same vehicle to
Elmsdale Auto Sales.
[17] In accordance with the caselaw, the Appellants must
adduce credible evidence which will satisfy me that this account receivable
from Elmsdale should not be included in the income in the 2001 taxation year. I
agree with the Respondent’s submissions that the focus in these appeals should
not be whether or not the account receivable amounts were paid by the deposit
method throughout the period June/July 2001 to December 13, 2001 but rather the
focus and onus must be on the Appellants’ ability to match those deposit sales
to the bank deposits. The Appellants have simply not done so. The Appellants
have not pursued the most preferable method of tackling a net worth assessment by
adducing evidence of what the income in the relevant years should be. In fact,
the Appellants accepted all of the Minister’s net worth calculations of income
except the inclusion of this account receivable. I have no evidence that these
amounts were deposited into the Appellants’ bank accounts in 2001 because the
Appellants could not determine with any certainty that the deposits actually
related to the payments made by Elmsdale. The Appellants argued that the
account receivable is accounted for or addressed in Exhibit A-3, the account
deposit slips for the Credit Union account which reflected cash deposits from
vehicle sales. Mrs. Rayner deducted that these deposits related to the Elmsdale
transactions because the amounts and dates in the deposit documents
approximated those cash sales. However, there was nothing more concrete offered
except what amounted to a method of picking out large deposits and suggesting
that they related to Elmsdale. I believe she referred to it in her evidence as
being her “best estimate”. Guesswork and estimates will not convince a Court to
change a net worth assessment.
[18] In addition, I am faced with a number of
inconsistencies within the documentation in Exhibit A-1 and Exhibit A-2. The
documents initially provided to the auditor (Exhibit A-2) were contradicted by
the subsequent documentation after the audit (Exhibit A-1). The invoices and
receipts contained in Exhibit A-1 were not produced until after the audit was
completed. Ms. MacNeill was provided with the documents at Exhibit A-2 during the
audit and some of the information contained in those invoices contradicted
those at Exhibit A-1. This has the appearance of a subsequent production of
documents to explain this account receivable. Another problem with this
documentation is that the invoices in Exhibit A-1 were sequential even though
purported sales occurred over a period of months. Again this has the appearance
of those invoices being completed at a time other than the date indicated.
Another problem area for the Appellants is the inclusion of an additional
vehicle, a 1998 Cavalier, in the documents at Exhibit A‑1 which does
not show up in the Exhibit A-2 documents. The Respondent suggested that it was
likely that the Appellant forgot to include pertinent taxes on the invoices at
Exhibit A-1 and therefore needed to include this extra vehicle to approximate
the $44,261 account receivable. Although I have no evidence that this was the
case, when I view all of the overall problem areas and inconsistencies with the
documents, for which I have no satisfactory answers, I must go back to the onus
which is upon the Appellants to adduce credible evidence that shows on a
balance of probabilities that this net worth assessment is wrong. Other
problems also exist. For example, the Appellants’ ledger indicates the purchase
of a vehicle from Mike’s Rebuildables on July 23, 2001 with a sale on the same
date to Elmsdale. If this was the only questionable evidence, I could certainly
accept an explanation that a same day purchase and resale can occur within the
industry. However, when I view all of the evidence, there are simply too many
other questionable areas, inconsistencies and contradictions which outweigh one
small area where I might have otherwise accepted an explanation given by the
Appellants. I have not been provided with sufficient, or more appropriately,
any banking documents and records to support the Appellants’ assertion that
payments for these vehicles were deposited to the Appellants’ bank account. I
am faced with the evidence of a bookkeeper who admitted that she did not know
what she was doing, did not track her bank statements or even know she had to,
did not open bank statements when she received them, provided money to her
husband from cash transactions which she did not track or reconcile, used no
safeguard in tracking cash transactions, and generally applied guesswork in
respect to amounts and dates to match cash sales to deposits. I have not been
provided with the required credible evidence which would satisfy the onus which
is upon the Appellants and which would support the removal of this account
receivable from the Appellant’s income in the 2001 taxation year.
[19] My determination that the account receivable is to be
included in income resolves the second issue and therefore the GST calculated
on this account receivable has been properly assessed.
[20] The third and last issue is the assessment of gross
negligence penalties on both the unreported income and unremitted GST amounts.
Subsection 163(3) of the Income Tax Act places the onus upon the
Minister to show that penalties should be applied pursuant to subsection
163(2). Section 285 of the Excise Tax Act is very similar to subsection
163(2) and the same basic principles apply in respect to both Acts when
penalties are at issue. The generally accepted definition of gross negligence
was set out by Strayer J. in Venne v. The Queen, 84 DTC 6247, at page
6256:
“Gross
negligence” must be taken to involve greater neglect than simply a failure to
use reasonable care. It must involve a high degree of negligence tantamount to
intentional acting, an indifference as to whether the law is complied with or
not.
[21] Bowman, C.J. in DeCosta v. The Queen,
2005 DTC 1436, distinguished gross negligence from ordinary negligence at
paragraph 11:
In drawing
the line between “ordinary” negligence or neglect and “gross” negligence a
number of factors have to be considered. One of course is the magnitude of the
omission in relation to the income declared. Another is the opportunity the
taxpayer had to detect the error. Another is the taxpayer’s education and
apparent intelligence. No single factor predominates. Each must be assigned its
proper weight in the context of the overall picture that emerges from the
evidence.
[22] The magnitude of the
omission in relation to the income declared in these appeals was significant.
In 2000, the unreported income assessed represented 33⅓ % of the gross
income actually reported by the Appellant. In 2001, the unreported income
assessed was 10% of the gross income reported by the Appellant. In addition,
the Appellant filed tax returns in both 2000 and 2001 reporting that he was in
a loss position. The GST returns were filed reporting a credit position. This
resulted in GST refunds. I think all of these factors should have alerted the
Appellant that something was wrong. While his wife did all of the bookkeeping,
she took direction on sale/purchase transactions from her husband. He was
responsible for the day-to-day operation of the business and he was in the best
position to detect potential reporting problems. He was also in the best
position to provide or arrange for the necessary sets of checks and balances so
that surveillance existed over these cash transactions. This was not his first
business venture. He was a fisherman prior to getting into auto sales. Where
businesses rely on cash transactions, the onus is that much higher to maintain
adequate books and records which are fairly transparent and self-explanatory to
a third party that is reviewing those records. The records in this business
were not only incomplete and inaccurate but they contained many inconsistencies
that cannot be satisfactorily explained. In a self-assessing system taxpayers
have the responsibility to clearly, accurately and consistently track and report
their business activities, and particularly so where those activities involve
cash transactions. According to the evidence which I heard, there was nothing
that would indicate that this would be a particularly difficult business to
properly track. He purchased vehicles and parts and then resold to customers
who apparently paid either by cash or cheque. When it is apparent to a taxpayer
that they are in over their heads and, as Mrs. Rayner stated, just do not
know what they are doing, then there is a responsibility to get professional
assistance. This went on for two years until they were audited. Mrs. Rayner
admitted that when she found out they were to be audited, she hoped they would
help her out in tracking items and setting up better records. The Appellants
admittedly had strong suspicions that problems existed. While I am always
reluctant to impose penalties unless the evidence has clearly established that
degree of negligence that requires the imposition, I believe the evidence here
supports that the Minister has satisfied the onus and that penalties are
warranted.
[23] The appeals are
dismissed. No costs will be awarded in either appeal.
Signed at Charlottetown, Prince
Edward Island, this 30th day
of July 2008.
Campbell J.
Email this Content