Date: 20090921
Docket: T-2069-07
Citation: 2009 FC 940
Ottawa,
Ontario, September 21, 2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
BETWEEN:
RANDY
KNECHT
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review of a Director’s Liability Assessment
dated June 10, 2003, where the Minister refused to exercise the discretion
conferred by section 281.1 of the Excise Tax Act, R.S., 1985, c. E-15
(the Act), to grant the applicant relief from interest and penalties on the Goods
and Services Tax (GST) payable for the reporting periods between October 1,
1998 and December 31, 1999 totalling $70,505.63. The applicant is a self-represented
litigant.
[2]
The
only question is whether Minister reasonably exercised his discretion pursuant
to section 281.1 of the Act in deciding not to waive or cancel penalties and
interest assessed to the Applicant with respect to the Director’s Liability
Assessment dated June 10, 2003?
Factual Background
[3]
Ken
Taylor Motors Ltd. failed to remit GST for its reporting periods in 1998 and
1999, for which it was assessed on February 10, 1999, June 4, 1999 and August
23, 1999, resulting in a Director’s Liability Assessment pursuant to subsection
323(1) of the Act.
[4]
The
interest and penalties arising from the Director’s Liability Assessment of the
applicant dated June 10, 2003 totalled $70,505.63 including interest and
penalties.
[5]
A
line of credit with the Royal Bank had become overdrawn when cheques were
written on the account in order to cover employee wages and payments to GMAC.
These cheques were returned because of non-sufficient funds, which prompted the
seizure and sale action by GMAC in January 1999. Two Third Party Requirements to
Pay were sent by regular mail to the Royal Bank dated March 9, 1999 (applicant’s
record, at pages 39 and 41). The first one was eventually paid by the Royal
Bank but the second one (page 41) was never paid because it had been sent by
regular mail instead of registered or certified mail or serve in person. The
respondent confirmed in a letter dated September 2, 2009 (applicant's record,
at page 50) that the Requirement to Pay issued pursuant to the Excise Tax
Act had to be served by registered or certified mail or in person.
[6]
The
applicant implied also that he was forced to use his entire retirement
fund in 2000 to compensate for the loss of income and he argued that he would
be able to make arrangements to pay the principal if the penalties and interest
were cancelled.
[7]
In
September 2003, the applicant filed a Notice of Objection to the Director’s
Liability Assessment, which was confirmed by the Minister on June 25, 2004.
[8]
On
November 14, 2006, the Tax Court of Canada dismissed the applicant’s appeal of
the Director’s Liability Assessment and the applicant was deemed
responsible for the debt.
[9]
On
November 9, 2007, the applicant paid $25,517.72 (applicant’s record, at page
151) being the principal due, leaving the penalties and interest unpaid.
Legislative Framework
[10]
The
applicable legislative provisions can be found at Appendix A at the end
of this document.
[11]
The
Taxpayer Relief Provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1985, c. 1 (5th
Suppl.) gives Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) the discretion to waive or cancel all
or part of properly assessed penalties and interests. Discretion will generally
be exercised if the taxpayer has not complied with the Act due to circumstances
beyond his or her control, financial hardship or due to actions of the CRA. In
addition, prior to making a decision with regard to the cancellation of
penalties or interest, the Agency will review the taxpayer’s situation to
determine if a reasonable standard of care has been exercised in the
administration of his or her affairs.
[12]
The
decision making process in respect of a request by a taxpayer for cancellation
or waiver of interest and/or penalties (a Fairness Request) pursuant to section
281.1 of the Act begins when a CRA Fairness Officer reviews the taxpayer’s
first level request. The Fairness Officer prepares a report and makes a
recommendation on the taxpayer’s First Level Request. Where the amount in issue
exceeds $5,000, the First Level Request is reviewed by a committee of three
Team Leaders (First Level Committee). If the taxpayer requests a review of the
First Level Request (a Second Level Request), a report is prepared by a CRA
Officer who was not involved in the First Level Request for review by a
committee which consists of the Assistant Director of the Revenue Collections
and Client Services Division, the Assistant Director of the Audit Division and
the Director of the South Interior Tax Services office (Second Level
Committee). The Second Level Committee reviews all the material and then makes
a decision.
[13]
In
deciding whether to grant a taxpayer relief in response to a Fairness Request,
the factors considered by the Minister generally include the following:
(a) the taxpayer’s history of
compliance with GST obligations;
(b) whether or not the
taxpayer has knowingly allowed a balance of GST payable to exist upon which
arrears interest has accrued;
(c) whether or not the
taxpayer has exercised a reasonable amount of care and has not been negligent
or careless in conducting his or her affairs under the self-assessment system;
(d) whether or not the
taxpayer has acted quickly to remedy any delay or omission attributable to the
taxpayer; and
(e) whether the
taxpayer is subject to hardship which affects his or her ability to pay the
assessed amounts.
Impugned Decision
[14]
On
March 11, 2007, the applicant applied to the Minister pursuant to section 281.1
of the Act for a waiver of interest and penalties on his GST payable for the
reporting periods between October 1, 1998 and December 31, 1999 (the First
Level Request).
[15]
The
basis of the First Level Request included financial hardship and alleged faulty
collection actions by the CRA. The First Level Request Report was reviewed by the
First Level Committee who denied the First Level Request on June 13, 2007, based
on the following grounds:
(a) the Tax Court of
Canada upheld the Director’s Liability Assessment on November 16, 2006;
(b) the applicant
maintained an ability to earn net monthly income of at least $4,500 to $7,470;
(c) the applicant
contributed a total of $35,900 between 2001 and 2006 to his registered
retirement savings plan (RRSPs), which the applicant’s spouse contributed a
total of $23,276 to her RRSPs during that same time;
(d) the applicant had a
one-half interest in his personal residence, with an equity share equal to
approximately $116,550;
(e) the applicant
claimed monthly expenses which were not reasonable, such as $1,400 in groceries
for two people, $1,000 in house maintenance and repairs and $200 in legal and
accounting fees;
(f) the applicant
proposed to make a lump sum payment of $38,049 toward the GST debt;
(g) the applicant
failed to demonstrate that he suffered financial hardship in any effort to pay
his GST debt;
(h) the applicant
failed to demonstrate that there were any circumstances beyond his control to
pay his GST debt;
(i) the applicant had
control of the company’s assets and did not fufill a commitment to pay the GST
debt by selling some of the company’s property or recovering accounts
receivable;
(j) the company sold
some of its property and paid off a secured creditor other than the CRA;
(k) the applicant did
not show any attempt of having GMAC hold back the GST portion of the proceeds
of sale following the liquidation of the inventory;
(l) despite the applicant’s
family’s medical issues, the applicant maintained the ability to earn income
and take responsibility for the GST debt; and
(m) the CRA’s efforts to
collect the arrears on the applicant’s GST debt were in accordance with its
policies and procedures and there was no indication of any undue delay or error
by the CRA in its collection action.
[16]
It
was noted that the applicant and his spouse have a combined monthly income of
approximately $7,400 for 2006. Based on monthly expenses of $4,410 claimed by
the applicant, there is $3,060 per month that the applicant can pay towards his
debt. Also, with the exception of the refund that was applied from the applicant’s
T1 account, the last payment made to the account was on May 12, 2005.
[17]
On
July 28, 2007, the applicant made a Second Level Request for a waiver of
interest and penalties on the GST payable. The applicant claimed that many of
the points made in the First Level Request were either misunderstood or
overlooked by the CRA and he noted that he only had $64 in RRSPs because he was
forced to cash them in after the closure of Ken Taylor Motors Ltd.
[18]
Following
a review of the Second Level Request, a CRA officer prepared a report
recommending the denial of the Second Level Request. The Second Level Committee
decided to deny the applicant’s Second Level Request on October 16, 2007 on the
following grounds:
(a) the guidelines established in
GST Memorandum G500-3-2-1;
(b) the applicant had a
total income of $41,813, $71,812 and $88,730 in his 2004, 2005 and 2006
taxation years, respectively;
(c) the total income of
the applicant’s spouse was $19,619, $20,079 and $20,373 in the 2004, 2005 and
2006 taxation years, respectively;
(d) the applicant
contributed a total of $34,900 between 1997 and 2002 to his RRSPs, while his
spouse withdrew $6,452 from her RRSPs;
(e) the applicant had a
one-half interest in his personal residence, with an equity share equal to
approximately $116,550;
(f) the combined net
monthly income of the applicant and his spouse was $3,060 in 2006;
(g) in summary, the applicant
failed to demonstrate that he suffered financial hardship in any efforts to pay
his GST debt;
(h) the applicant had a
history of non-compliance with his obligations under the Act and had not
exercised a reasonable amount of care in conducting his affairs under the
self-assessment system under the Act;
(i) the applicant had
not acted quickly to remedy any delay or omission in making GST payments;
(j) the applicant had allowed
interest to accrue on his GST debt;
(k) the applicant had
not made a voluntary payment on his GST debt since May 12, 2005;
(l) despite the applicant’s
family medical issues, the applicant maintained the ability to earn income and
take responsibility for the GST debt;
(m) the CRA responded to
the applicant’s letter dated April 2, 2002 (setting out his due diligence
defence) by letter dated May 1, 2002;
(n) the CRA was not
obligated to deliver Requirements to Pay by registered mail (despite the
conclusion in the Second Level Report, prior to amendments to the Act in force
on October 20, 2000, section 317 of the Act provided that the Minister was
required to deliver Requirements to Pay by registered mail, certified mail or
personal delivery);
(o) as there was
insufficient equity following the sale of the company’s property to satisfy the
company’s GST debt, the CRA released its judgments registered against the
company’s property; and
(p) in summary, there
was no indication of any undue delay or error by the CRA in its collection
action.
[19]
After
reviewing all the circumstances of this case, it was found that it would be
inappropriate to cancel any interest or penalty charges. Furthermore, interest
would continue to accrue until the account is paid in full.
Standard of Review
[20]
The
respondent argues that the grounds of review are set out in subsection 18.1(4)
of the Federal Courts Act and are the bases upon which courts may
generally provide the remedy sought. A reviewing court should consider whether
the discretion was exercised in good faith and in accordance with the
principles of natural justice. The Court should not interfere if the Minister
did not rely upon irrelevant or extraneous considerations (Barron v. Canada
(Minister of National Revenue) (1997), 209 N.R. 392, 69 A.C.W.S. (3d) 976
(F.C.A.) at paragraphs 5 and 8).
[21]
Tax
fairness decisions are discretionary in nature. Before Dunsmuir v. New
Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, the standard of review
applicable to the Minister’s exercise of discretion in a decision made under
section 281.1 of the Act was unreasonableness simpliciter (Lanno v. Canada (Customs and
Revenue Agency), 2005 FCA 153, 334 N.R. 348). Following Dunsmuir, tax
fairness decisions are reviewable according to the new standard of
reasonableness.
[22]
As
a result, the Court will only intervene to review the decision if it does not
fall “within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in
respect of the facts and law” (Dunsmuir at paragraph 47). For a decision
to be reasonable there must be justification, transparency and intelligibility
within the decision making process.
Applicant’s Arguments
[23]
The
Taxpayer Relief Provisions of the Income Tax Act state that the Minister
may grant relief from the application of penalties and interest if the penalty
and interest arose primarily because of actions of the CRA, such as processing
delays or errors in processing. The applicant claims CRA caused several delays
and errors in processing, thus justifying the grant of relief from the
application of penalties and interest. These errors and delays include:
(a) Failure to send a Requirement
to Pay via registered mail as was required in section 317 of the Act as
it was in effect at the time;
(b) Releasing liens on
property that was sold with the sole intent of satisfying the debt to CRA;
(c) A pre-assessment
letter was sent more than two years after the business was closed;
(d) A due diligence defence
was submitted on April 1, 2002. However, no response was issued until May 21,
2003, nearly 14 months later;
(e) A request for a
statement accounting for money collected by CRA took several written requests
and more than eight months;
(f) A request for a
statement accounting for money collected by Okanagan Court bailiffs, acting on
behalf of CRA took several requests and more than a year;
(g) Okanagan Court
bailiffs acting on behalf of CRA collected money that was not remitted.
[24]
The
applicant requests that CRA re-examine the facts and reconsider his original
request for relief under the terms of the Taxpayer Relief Provisions of the Income
Tax Act.
[25]
After
the death of his father on June 6, 1996, the applicant took over the company,
including aspects of the business unfamiliar to him, including bookkeeping and
finances. At the same time, he performed duties as executor of the estate and
as well dealt with probate issues, lawyers and other matters.
[26]
The
applicant also had to help his spouse who became ill following surgery in April
1996 and care for his disabled son. Furthermore, the applicant’s
brother-in-law, who was also his best friend, was killed in a logging accident
in August 1999, adding to the stress at the time the business was collapsing.
There was also pressure from family to have security on the applicant’s
mother’s personal property as well as the place of business of Ken Taylor
Motors Ltd. released from liens and security interests.
[27]
The
applicant submits that an error by the Royal Bank in January 1999 caused some cheques
from Ken Taylor Motors Ltd. to be returned, which in turn caused GMAC to call
in their loan on vehicle inventory. In order to receive close to their actual
value, Joy Knecht (the applicant’s mother and the other company director)
pressured the applicant to sell the vehicles from the dealership to get the
maximum value. She was the only one who had a personal guarantee signed to GMAC
and did not want to risk having to realize on her guarantee. The applicant
pursued action first through the Royal Bank Ombudsman and then the Canadian
Banking Ombudsman, who agreed that the bank was in error.
[28]
The
applicant alleges that errors and delays by CRA also caused interest and
penalties to add up. For example, two Requirements to Pay were issued by CRA to
the Royal Bank in March 1999. One was issued in accordance with section 224 of
the Income Tax Act and the other was issued in accordance with section 317
of the Act. Both were delivered by regular mail and the Royal Bank failed to properly
pay on either Requirement to Pay. The Royal Bank disputed the Requirement
to Pay because it was not sent via registered or certified mail or delivered by
hand, as was required by the Act at that time. The applicant argues that if CRA
had registered this Requirement to Pay, the entire amount of the GST owing at
the time would have been paid.
[29]
In
September 1999, a piece of property owned by Ken Taylor Motors Ltd. was sold
and the proceeds of this sale were to be used to pay the GST debt, as discussed
with and agreed upon by CRA. The applicant submits that instead of exercising
its priority by providing a payout figure and collecting, CRA released its
liens on the property, allowing other creditors to acquire the proceeds, even
though the sole purpose of the sale was to raise the funds with which to pay
CRA. An opportunity to receive payment in full was thus lost due to the actions
of CRA. When the applicant raised this point in Tax Court, the CRA
representative could not explain why this lien was released. Rodot Holdings Co.
Ltd. had a lien on the property as security for a debenture and received the
proceeds of the sale of the property. The debenture also included other assets
of Ken Taylor Motors Ltd. which were seized and sold by Okanagan
Court
bailiffs.
[30]
Following
receipt of a pre-assessment letter dated January 23, 2002, more than two years
after the close of the business in 1999, the applicant submitted a due diligence
defence on April 1, 2002 but no response was issued until May 21, 2003, nearly
14 months later.
[31]
A
request for a statement of accounting for money collected was requested by the applicant
on June 17, 2003. Following several subsequent requests, a statement was
received in a letter dated November 14, 2003 but it did not include the
requested breakdown. Finally, more than eight months later and after another
request, the applicant received the statement on February 27, 2004.
[32]
Although
the applicant filed a Notice to Appeal on September 20, 2004, his case was only
heard on November 2, 2006, more than two years after filing the appeal. During
this period, the case was handled by four different counsels for the Minister.
The first three all wanted to discuss possible settlements, but the last
counsel was unwilling to discuss this and insisted on going to court.
[33]
The
applicant also contends that many of the points in the appeal were never
addressed in the Minister’s denial of the First Level Request on June 13, 2007.
The response to the Second Level Request October 16, 2007 also disregarded some
of the points addressed or did not consider the supporting documentation
provided by the applicant.
[34]
The
applicant submits that having to pay interest and penalties will cause hardship
to his family and a detriment to his wife’s already frail health.
Although the principal amount has been paid in full, the interest and penalties
have climbed to over $53,000.
[35]
The
applicant reiterates that he was forced to use his entire retirement savings in
2000 after the loss of his business. He did not qualify to receive unemployment
income and his wife was unable to work full time due to her illness. If the applicant
borrowed an additional $53,000, he would be left with a large and unmanageable
payment until his late 70s. The applicant is 54 years old and he would be
unable to save a significant amount in a retirement plan which would enable him
to refund the large payments. Furthermore, there is no retirement fund
available to him at his current employer. The applicant’s wife is only able to
work part time and although their adult son is now employed, he still lives at
home as he requires home support due to his learning disabilities. The applicant
has an aging mother and his elderly in-laws are in need of increasing support. The
applicant often accompanies his wife to travel to Nanaimo to care for
his in-laws, forcing him to take time away from his job. He does not get paid during
these trips because he works on commission.
Respondent’s Arguments
[36]
The
applicant was found personally liable for unremitted GST by the Tax Court of
Canada. Despite this, the respondent submits he still made no efforts to pay
any part of his GST debt to CRA, even though he had the financial means to make
voluntary payments for the full amount. Instead, he knowingly allowed interest
to accrue.
[37]
Having
considered all of the applicant’s circumstances, there was no undue delay by
the Minister with respect to its collection of the applicant’s debt and the
Minister reasonably exercised his discretion pursuant to section 281.1 of the Act
in denying the applicant’s request for interest and penalty relief.
[38]
The
Minister created guidelines to facilitate the exercise of his discretion under
section 281.1 of the Excise Tax Act to cancel or waive penalties and
interest payable under section 280 of the Excise Tax Act. The respondent
notes the Minister cannot fetter his discretion by treating the guidelines as
binding and excluding all other relevant reasons for exercising his discretion.
Each taxpayer relief request is considered on its merits (Maple Lodge Farms
Ltd. v. Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2 at pages 6 and 7).
[39]
At
the time of the applicant’s Second Level Request, GST Memorandum G500-3-2-1,
entitled “Cancellation or Waiver of Penalties and Interest” (GST500-3-2-1),
which sets out some of the factors considered by CRA in deciding whether to
apply section 281.1 of the Act, was in effect. Generally, a portion of interest
and penalties may be waived if they arise from circumstances beyond a
taxpayer’s control, if the interest and penalties arise primarily because of
the actions of the CRA or where the taxpayer has proved an inability to pay the
amounts owing.
[40]
In
deciding whether to grant a taxpayer relief in response to an applicant’s
request, the factors considered by the Minister generally include the
following:
(a) the taxpayer’s history of
compliance with GST obligations;
(b) whether or not the
taxpayer has knowingly allowed a balance of GST payable to exist upon which
arrears interest has accrued;
(c) whether or not the
taxpayer has exercised a reasonable amount of care and has not been negligent
or careless in conducting his or her affairs under the self-assessment system;
(d) whether or not the
taxpayer has acted quickly to remedy any delay or omission attributable to the
taxpayer; and
(e) whether the
taxpayer is subject to hardship which affects his or her ability to pay the
assessed amounts.
[41]
According
to the respondent, it was reasonable for the Minister to conclude that the applicant’s
situation did not warrant a waiver of interest and penalties on the GST payable
in respect of the Director’s Liability Assessment and to consequently deny his
request for relief as the applicant has not demonstrated financial hardship or
any circumstances beyond his control to pay the GST debt. The records of the
CRA and the financial information supplied by the applicant support his ability
to pay interest and penalties over a period of time that would not cause any
additional financial burden.
[42]
The
respondent argues the applicant has not shown a history of compliance with his
tax obligations under the Act. He negligently conducted his affairs under the
self-assessment system of the Act, he did not act quickly to remedy any delay
or omission in making payments of GST and he allowed interest to accrue on a
known GST debt.
[43]
Also,
the applicant did not demonstrate any undue delay or error on the part of the
CRA in the collection of the GST debt. The CRA responded to the applicant’s due
diligence submissions within reasonable time and acted in accordance with its
policies and procedures in its administration of the collection of the GST
debt. The Minister cannot be blamed for not having detected the taxpayer’s own
negligence sooner. The Minister is only required to takes steps or commence
processes within a reasonable amount of time (Braceland v. Canada (Minister
of National Revenue) (1999), 165 F.T.R. 93, 87 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1048 (F.C.T.D.)
at paragraph 22).
[44]
Furthermore,
the Minister considered all of the information before him and considered no
irrelevant information in arriving at his decision. The Minister properly and
reasonably exercised his discretion and it was reasonable for him to conclude
that relief is not appropriate in the circumstances.
Analysis
[45]
I
have been persuaded by the applicant’s submission that the respondent made an
error in not sending by registered mail the second Requirement to Pay (March 9,
1999). But, this error is not determinative. It does not have an impact on the
penalties and interests imposed on the applicant. The record shows (respondent’s
record, at page 23) that there was no money available for the Royal Bank to pay
the second Requirement to pay ($38,840.12).
[46]
The
Court is not convinced with the applicant’s evidence that the respondent has
committed an error when it released the liens on a property to be sold
(applicant's record, at page 53). The Court cannot conclude with the documents
filed by the applicant that the respondent was negligent or did not protect its
interests.
[47]
The
applicant has not demonstrated how the CRA’s assessment was in error.
[48]
The
respondent considered all the applicant’s arguments and the particular facts of
the case in making its decision when reviewing the applicant’s appeal. There is
no evidence that the penalties and interest were incurred primarily because of
the actions of the CRA.
[49]
The
Court understands there are unfortunate circumstances plaguing the applicant’s
situation but the decision taken by the respondent cannot be characterized as
unreasonable. It falls in the range of acceptable outcomes (Dunsmuir, paragraph
47).
[50]
For
this reason, this judicial review application shall be dismissed.
[51]
Given
the particular circumstances of this case, there shall be no award for costs.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS that the application for
judicial review be dismissed. No costs are awarded.
“Michel
Beaudry”
APPENDIX A
Relevant
Legislative Provisions
Excise Tax Act, R.S., 1985,
c. E-15:
|
Waiving or
cancelling interest
281.1 (1)
The Minister may, on or before the day that is 10 calendar years after the
end of a reporting period of a person, or on application by the person on or
before that day, waive or cancel interest payable by the person under section
280 on an amount that is required to be remitted or paid by the person under
this Part in respect of the reporting period.
|
Renonciation
ou annulation — intérêts
281.1 (1) Le ministre peut, au plus
tard le jour qui suit de dix années civiles la fin d’une période de
déclaration d’une personne ou sur demande de la personne présentée au plus
tard ce jour-là, annuler les intérêts payables par la personne en application
de l’article 280 sur tout montant qu’elle est tenue de verser ou de payer en
vertu de la présente partie relativement à la période de déclaration, ou y
renoncer.
|
|
Garnishment
317. (1)
If the Minister has knowledge or suspects that a particular person is, or
will be within one year, liable to make a payment to another person who is
liable to pay or remit an amount under this Part (in this subsection and
subsections (2), (3), (6) and (11) referred to as the “tax debtor”), the
Minister may, by notice in writing, require the particular person to pay
without delay, if the moneys are payable immediately, and in any other case
as and when the moneys become payable, the moneys otherwise payable to the
tax debtor in whole or in part to the Receiver General on account of the tax
debtor’s liability under this Part.
Idem
(2) Without
limiting the generality of subsection (1), where the Minister has knowledge
or suspects that within ninety days
(a) a bank,
credit union, trust company or other similar person (in this section referred
to as the “institution”) will loan or advance moneys to, or make a payment on
behalf of, or make a payment in respect of a negotiable instrument issued by,
a tax debtor who is indebted to the institution and who has granted security
in respect of the indebtedness, or
(b) a person,
other than an institution, will loan or advance moneys to, or make a payment
on behalf of, a tax debtor who the Minister knows or suspects
(i) is
employed by, or is engaged in providing services or property to, that person
or was or will be, within ninety days, so employed or engaged, or
(ii) where
that person is a corporation, is not dealing at arm’s length with that
person,
the Minister
may, by notice in writing, require the institution or person, as the case may
be, to pay in whole or in part to the Receiver General on account of the tax
debtor’s liability under this Part the moneys that would otherwise be so
loaned, advanced or paid, and any moneys so paid to the Receiver General are
deemed to have been loaned, advanced or paid, as the case may be, to the tax
debtor.
Garnishment
(3) Despite
any other provision of this Part, any other enactment of Canada other than
the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, any enactment of a province or any law, if
the Minister has knowledge or suspects that a particular person is, or will
become within one year, liable to make a payment
(a) to a tax
debtor, or
(b) to a
secured creditor who has a right to receive the payment that, but for a
security interest in favour of the secured creditor, would be payable to the
tax debtor,
the Minister
may, by notice in writing, require the particular person to pay without
delay, if the moneys are payable immediately, and in any other case as and
when the moneys become payable, the moneys otherwise payable to the tax
debtor or the secured creditor in whole or in part to the Receiver General on
account of the tax debtor’s liability under this Part, and on receipt of that
notice by the particular person, the amount of those moneys that is so
required to be paid to the Receiver General shall, despite any security
interest in those moneys, become the property of Her Majesty in right of
Canada to the extent of that liability as assessed by the Minister and shall
be paid to the Receiver General in priority to any such security interest.
(4) [Repealed,
2000, c. 30, s. 95]
Effect of
receipt
(5) A receipt
issued by the Minister for moneys paid as required under this section is a
good and sufficient discharge of the original liability to the extent of the
payment.
Effect of
requirement
(6) If the
Minister has, under this section, required a person to pay to the Receiver
General on account of the liability under this Part of a tax debtor moneys
otherwise payable by the person to the tax debtor as interest, rent,
remuneration, a dividend, an annuity or other periodic payment, the
requirement applies to all such payments to be made by the person to the tax
debtor until the liability under this Part is satisfied and operates to
require payments to the Receiver General out of each such payment of such
amount as is stipulated by the Minister in a notice in writing.
Failure to
comply
(7) Every
person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (1), (3) or
(6) is liable to pay to Her Majesty in right of Canada an amount equal to the amount that the person was
required under subsection (1), (3) or (6), as the case may be, to pay to the
Receiver General.
Idem
(8) Every
institution or person that fails to comply with a requirement under
subsection (2) with respect to moneys to be loaned, advanced or paid is
liable to pay to Her Majesty in right of Canada
an amount equal to the lesser of
(a) the
aggregate of moneys so loaned, advanced or paid, and
(b) the amount
that the institution or person was required under that subsection to pay to
the Receiver General.
Assessment
(9) The
Minister may assess any person for any amount payable under this section by
the person to the Receiver General and, where the Minister sends a notice of
assessment, sections 296 to 311 apply, with such modifications as the
circumstances require.
Time limit
(10) An
assessment of an amount payable under this section by a person to the
Receiver General shall not be made more than four years after the notice from
the Minister requiring the payment was received by the person.
Effect of
payment as required
(11) If an
amount that would otherwise have been payable to or on behalf of a tax debtor
is paid by a person to the Receiver General pursuant to a notice from the
Minister issued under this section or pursuant to an assessment under
subsection (9), the person is deemed, for all purposes, to have paid the
amount to or on behalf of the tax debtor.
Application
to Her Majesty in right of a province
(12)
Provisions of this Part that provide that a person who has been required to
do so by the Minister must pay to the Receiver General an amount that would
otherwise be lent, advanced or paid to a particular person who is liable to
make a payment under this Part, or to that particular person’s secured
creditor, apply to Her Majesty in right of a province.
|
Saisie-arrêt
317. (1) Dans le cas où le ministre
sait ou soupçonne qu’une personne donnée est ou sera tenue, dans les douze
mois, de faire un paiement à une autre personne — appelée « débiteur
fiscal » au présent paragraphe et aux paragraphes (2), (3), (6) et (11)
— qui elle-même est redevable d’un montant en vertu de la présente partie, il
peut, par avis écrit, exiger de la personne donnée que tout ou partie des
sommes par ailleurs payables au débiteur fiscal soient versées, immédiatement
si les sommes sont alors payables, sinon, dès qu’elles le deviennent, au
receveur général au titre du montant dont le débiteur fiscal est redevable
selon la présente partie.
Idem
(2)
Sans restreindre la portée générale du paragraphe (1), lorsque le ministre
sait ou soupçonne que, dans les 90 jours, selon le cas :
a) une
banque, une caisse de crédit, une compagnie de fiducie ou une personne
semblable — appelée « institution » au présent article — prêtera ou
avancera une somme au débiteur fiscal qui a une dette envers l’institution et
qui a donné à celle-ci une garantie pour cette dette, ou effectuera un
paiement au nom d’un tel débiteur ou au titre d’un effet de commerce émis par
un tel débiteur;
b) une
personne autre qu’une institution prêtera ou avancera une somme à un débiteur
fiscal, ou effectuera un paiement au nom d’un débiteur fiscal, que le
ministre sait ou soupçonne :
(i)
être le salarié de cette personne, ou prestataire de biens ou de services à
cette personne, ou qu’il l’a été ou le sera dans les 90 jours,
(ii)
lorsque cette personne est une personne morale, avoir un lien de dépendance
avec cette personne,
il
peut, par avis écrit, obliger cette institution ou cette personne à verser au
receveur général au titre de l’obligation du débiteur fiscal en vertu de la
présente partie tout ou partie de la somme qui serait autrement ainsi prêtée,
avancée ou payée. La somme ainsi versée est réputée avoir été prêtée, avancée
ou payée au débiteur fiscal.
Saisie-arrêt
(3)
Malgré les autres dispositions de la présente partie, tout texte législatif
fédéral à l’exception de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité, tout
texte législatif provincial et toute règle de droit, si le ministre sait ou
soupçonne qu’une personne est ou deviendra, dans les douze mois, débitrice
d’une somme à un débiteur fiscal, ou à un créancier garanti qui, grâce à un
droit en garantie en sa faveur, a le droit de recevoir la somme autrement
payable au débiteur fiscal, il peut, par avis écrit, obliger la personne à
verser au receveur général tout ou partie de cette somme, immédiatement si la
somme est alors payable, sinon dès qu’elle le devient, au titre du montant
dont le débiteur fiscal est redevable selon la présente partie. Sur réception
par la personne de l’avis, la somme qui y est indiquée comme devant être versée
devient, malgré tout autre droit en garantie au titre de cette somme, la
propriété de Sa Majesté du chef du Canada, jusqu’à concurrence du montant
dont le débiteur fiscal est ainsi redevable selon la cotisation du ministre,
et doit être versée au receveur général par priorité sur tout autre droit en
garantie au titre de cette somme.
(4)
[Abrogé, 2000, ch. 30, art. 95]
Récépissé
du ministre
(5) Le
récépissé du ministre relatif à des sommes versées, comme l’exige le présent
article, constitue une quittance valable et suffisante de l’obligation
initiale jusqu’à concurrence du paiement.
Étendue
de l’obligation
(6)
L’obligation, imposée par le ministre aux termes du présent article, d’une
personne de verser au receveur général, au titre d’un montant dont un
débiteur fiscal est redevable selon la présente partie, des sommes payables
par ailleurs par cette personne au débiteur fiscal à titre d’intérêts, de
loyer, de rémunération, de dividende, de rente ou autre paiement périodique
s’applique à tous les paiements analogues à être effectués par la personne au
débiteur fiscal tant que le montant dont celui-ci est redevable n’est pas
acquitté. De plus, l’obligation exige que des paiements soient faits au
receveur général sur chacun de ces versements, selon le montant que le
ministre fixe dans un avis écrit.
Défaut
de se conformer
(7)
Toute personne qui ne se conforme pas à une exigence du paragraphe (1), (3)
ou (6) est redevable à Sa Majesté du chef du Canada d’un montant égal à celui
qu’elle était tenue de verser au receveur général en application d’un de ces
paragraphes.
Idem
(8)
Toute institution ou personne qui ne se conforme pas à une exigence du
paragraphe (2) est redevable à Sa Majesté du chef du Canada, à l’égard des
sommes à prêter, à avancer ou à payer, d’un montant égal au moins élevé des
montants suivants :
a) le
total des sommes ainsi prêtées, avancées ou payées;
b) le
montant qu’elle était tenue de verser au receveur général en application de
ce paragraphe.
Cotisation
(9) Le
ministre peut établir une cotisation pour un montant qu’une personne doit
payer au receveur général en vertu du présent article. Dès l’envoi de l’avis
de cotisation, les articles 296 à 311 s’appliquent, compte tenu des
adaptations de circonstance.
Délai
(10)
La cotisation ne peut être établie plus de quatre ans suivant la réception
par la personne de l’avis exigeant le paiement du montant.
Effet
du paiement
(11)
La personne qui, conformément à un avis que le ministre a délivré aux termes
du présent article ou à une cotisation établie en application du paragraphe
(9), paie au receveur général un montant qui aurait par ailleurs été payable
à un débiteur fiscal, ou pour son compte, est réputée, à toutes fins utiles,
payer le montant au débiteur fiscal ou pour son compte.
Application
à Sa Majesté du chef d’une province
(12)
Les dispositions de la présente partie prévoyant qu’une personne doit payer
au receveur général, en exécution d’une obligation en ce sens imposée par le
ministre, un montant qui serait par ailleurs prêté, avancé ou payé soit à une
personne redevable d’un paiement aux termes de la présente partie, soit à son
créancier garanti, s’appliquent à Sa Majesté du chef d’une province.
|
|
|
Liability of
directors
323. (1)
If a corporation fails to remit an amount of net tax as required under
subsection 228(2) or (2.3) or to pay an amount as required under section
230.1 that was paid to, or was applied to the liability of, the corporation
as a net tax refund, the directors of the corporation at the time the
corporation was required to remit or pay, as the case may be, the amount are
jointly and severally, or solidarily, liable, together with the corporation,
to pay the amount and any interest on, or penalties relating to, the amount.
|
Responsabilité des administrateurs
323. (1) Les administrateurs d’une
personne morale au moment où elle était tenue de verser, comme l’exigent les
paragraphes 228(2) ou (2.3), un montant de taxe nette ou, comme l’exige
l’article 230.1, un montant au titre d’un remboursement de taxe nette qui lui
a été payé ou qui a été déduit d’une somme dont elle est redevable, sont, en
cas de défaut par la personne morale, solidairement tenus, avec cette
dernière, de payer le montant ainsi que les intérêts et pénalités afférents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Tax Act, 1985, c. 1
(5th Suppl.):
|
Waiver of penalty or interest
220. (3.1) The Minister may, on or before
the day that is ten calendar years after the end of a taxation year of a
taxpayer (or in the case of a partnership, a fiscal period of the
partnership) or on application by the taxpayer or partnership on or before
that day, waive or cancel all or any portion of any penalty or interest
otherwise payable under this Act by the taxpayer or partnership in respect of
that taxation year or fiscal period, and notwithstanding subsections 152(4)
to (5), any assessment of the interest and penalties payable by the taxpayer
or partnership shall be made that is necessary to take into account the
cancellation of the penalty or interest.
|
Renonciation
aux pénalités et aux intérêts
220. (3.1) Le ministre peut, au
plus tard le jour qui suit de dix années civiles la fin de l’année
d’imposition d’un contribuable ou de l’exercice d’une société de personnes ou
sur demande du contribuable ou de la société de personnes faite au plus tard
ce jour-là, renoncer à tout ou partie d’un montant de pénalité ou d’intérêts
payable par ailleurs par le contribuable ou la société de personnes en
application de la présente loi pour cette année d’imposition ou cet exercice,
ou l’annuler en tout ou en partie. Malgré les paragraphes 152(4) à (5), le
ministre établit les cotisations voulues concernant les intérêts et pénalités
payables par le contribuable ou la société de personnes pour tenir compte de
pareille annulation.
|
|
Garnishment
224. (1) Where the Minister has knowledge
or suspects that a person is, or will be within one year, liable to make a
payment to another person who is liable to make a payment under this Act (in
this subsection and subsections 224(1.1) and 224(3) referred to as the “tax
debtor”), the Minister may in writing require the person to pay forthwith,
where the moneys are immediately payable, and in any other case as and when
the moneys become payable, the moneys otherwise payable to the tax debtor in
whole or in part to the Receiver General on account of the tax debtor’s
liability under this Act.
Idem
(1.1) Without
limiting the generality of subsection 224(1), where the Minister has
knowledge or suspects that within 90 days
(a) a bank,
credit union, trust company or other similar person (in this section referred
to as the “institution”) will lend or advance moneys to, or make a payment on
behalf of, or make a payment in respect of a negotiable instrument issued by,
a tax debtor who is indebted to the institution and who has granted security
in respect of the indebtedness, or
(b) a person,
other than an institution, will lend or advance moneys to, or make a payment
on behalf of, a tax debtor who the Minister knows or suspects
(i) is
employed by, or is engaged in providing services or property to, that person
or was or will be, within 90 days, so employed or engaged, or
(ii) where
that person is a corporation, is not dealing at arm’s length with that
person,
the Minister
may in writing require the institution or person, as the case may be, to pay
in whole or in part to the Receiver General on account of the tax debtor’s
liability under this Act the moneys that would otherwise be so lent, advanced
or paid and any moneys so paid to the Receiver General shall be deemed to
have been lent, advanced or paid, as the case may be, to the tax debtor.
Garnishment
(1.2)
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act, any other enactment of Canada, any enactment of a province or
any law, but subject to subsections 69(1) and 69.1(1) of the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act and section 11.4 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act,
where the Minister has knowledge or suspects that a particular person is, or
will become within one year, liable to make a payment
(a) to another
person (in this subsection referred to as the “tax debtor”) who is liable to
pay an amount assessed under subsection 227(10.1) or a similar provision, or
(b) to a
secured creditor who has a right to receive the payment that, but for a
security interest in favour of the secured creditor, would be payable to the
tax debtor,
the Minister
may in writing require the particular person to pay forthwith, where the
moneys are immediately payable, and in any other case as and when the moneys
become payable, the moneys otherwise payable to the tax debtor or the secured
creditor in whole or in part to the Receiver General on account of the tax
debtor’s liability under subsection 227(10.1) or the similar provision, and
on receipt of that requirement by the particular person, the amount of those
moneys that is so required to be paid to the Receiver General shall,
notwithstanding any security interest in those moneys, become the property of
Her Majesty to the extent of that liability as assessed by the Minister and shall
be paid to the Receiver General in priority to any such security interest.
Definitions
(1.3) In
subsection 224(1.2),
"secured creditor"
« créancier garanti »
"secured
creditor" means a person who has a security interest in the property of
another person or who acts for or on behalf of that person with respect to
the security interest and includes a trustee appointed under a trust deed
relating to a security interest, a receiver or receiver-manager appointed by
a secured creditor or by a court on the application of a secured creditor, a
sequestrator or any other person performing a similar function;
"security
interest"
« garantie »
"security
interest" means any interest in property that secures payment or
performance of an obligation and includes an interest created by or arising
out of a debenture, mortgage, hypothec, lien, pledge, charge, deemed or
actual trust, assignment or encumbrance of any kind whatever, however or
whenever arising, created, deemed to arise or otherwise provided for;
"similar provision"
« disposition semblable »
"similar
provision" means a provision, similar to subsection 227(10.1), of any
Act of a province that imposes a tax similar to the tax imposed under this
Act, where the province has entered into an agreement with the Minister of
Finance for the collection of the taxes payable to the province under that
Act.
Garnishment
(1.4)
Provisions of this Act that provide that a person who has been required to do
so by the Minister must pay to the Receiver General an amount that would
otherwise be lent, advanced or paid to a taxpayer who is liable to make a
payment under this Act, or to that taxpayer’s secured creditor, apply to Her
Majesty in right of Canada or a province.
Minister’s
receipt discharges original liability
(2) The
receipt of the Minister for moneys paid as required under this section is a
good and sufficient discharge of the original liability to the extent of the
payment.
Idem
(3) Where the
Minister has, under this section, required a person to pay to the Receiver
General on account of a liability under this Act of a tax debtor moneys
otherwise payable by the person to the tax debtor as interest, rent,
remuneration, a dividend, an annuity or other periodic payment, the
requirement applies to all such payments to be made by the person to the tax
debtor until the liability under this Act is satisfied and operates to
require payments to the Receiver General out of each such payment of such
amount as is stipulated by the Minister in the requirement.
Failure to
comply with s. (1), (1.2) or (3) requirement
(4) Every
person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection 224(1),
224(1.2) or 224(3) is liable to pay to Her Majesty an amount equal to the
amount that the person was required under subsection 224(1), 224(1.2) or
224(3), as the case may be, to pay to the Receiver General.
Failure to
comply with s. (1.1) requirement
(4.1) Every
institution or person that fails to comply with a requirement under
subsection 224(1.1) with respect to moneys to be lent, advanced or paid is
liable to pay to Her Majesty an amount equal to the lesser of
(a) the total
of moneys so lent, advanced or paid, and
(b) the amount
that the institution or person was required under that subsection to pay to
the Receiver General.
Service of
garnishee
(5) Where a
person carries on business under a name or style other than the person’s own
name, notification to the person of a requirement under subsection 224(1),
224(1.1) or 224(1.2) may be addressed to the name or style under which the
person carries on business and, in the case of personal service, shall be
deemed to be validly served if it is left with an adult person employed at
the place of business of the addressee.
Idem
(6) Where
persons carry on business in partnership, notification to the persons of a
requirement under subsection 224(1), 224(1.1) or 224(1.2) may be addressed to
the partnership name and, in the case of personal service, shall be deemed to
be validly served if it is served on one of the partners or left with an
adult person employed at the place of business of the partnership.
|
Saisie-arrêt
224. (1)
S’il sait ou soupçonne qu’une personne est ou sera, dans les douze mois,
tenue de faire un paiement à une autre personne qui, elle-même, est tenue de
faire un paiement en vertu de la présente loi (appelée « débiteur fiscal » au
présent paragraphe et aux paragraphes (1.1) et (3)), le ministre peut exiger
par écrit de cette personne que les fonds autrement payables au débiteur fiscal
soient en totalité ou en partie versés, sans délai si les fonds sont
immédiatement payables, sinon au fur et à mesure qu’ils deviennent payables,
au receveur général au titre de l’obligation du débiteur fiscal en vertu de
la présente loi.
Idem
(1.1)
Sans préjudice de la portée générale du paragraphe (1), lorsque le ministre
sait ou soupçonne que, dans les 90 jours :
a)
soit une banque, une caisse de crédit, une société de fiducie ou une autre
personne semblable (appelée l’« institution » au présent article) prêtera ou
avancera des fonds à un débiteur fiscal, effectuera un paiement au nom d’un
débiteur fiscal ou fera un paiement à l’égard d’un effet négociable émis par
le débiteur fiscal qui est endetté envers l’institution et qui a fourni à
l’institution une garantie à l’égard de la dette;
b)
soit une personne, autre qu’une institution, prêtera ou avancera des fonds à
un débiteur fiscal ou effectuera un paiement au nom d’un débiteur fiscal que
le ministre sait ou soupçonne :
(i)
être employé de cette personne, ou prestataire de biens ou de services à
cette personne ou qu’elle l’a été ou le sera dans les 90 jours,
(ii)
lorsque cette personne est une société, avoir un lien de dépendance avec
cette personne,
il
peut exiger par écrit de cette institution ou de cette personne, selon le
cas, que les fonds qui seraient autrement prêtés, avancés ou payés au
débiteur fiscal soient en totalité ou en partie versés au receveur général au
titre de l’obligation du débiteur fiscal en vertu de la présente loi, et les
fonds ainsi versés au receveur général sont réputés avoir été prêtés, avancés
ou payés, selon le cas, au débiteur fiscal.
Saisie-arrêt
(1.2)
Malgré les autres dispositions de la présente loi, la Loi sur la faillite et
l’insolvabilité, tout autre texte législatif fédéral ou provincial et toute
règle de droit, mais sous réserve des paragraphes 69(1) et 69.1(1) de la Loi
sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité et de l’article 11.4 de la Loi sur les
arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies, s’il sait ou soupçonne
qu’une personne donnée est ou deviendra, dans les douze mois, débiteur d’une
somme :
a)
soit à un débiteur fiscal, à savoir une personne redevable du montant d’une
cotisation en application du paragraphe 227(10.1) ou d’une disposition semblable;
b)
soit à un créancier garanti, à savoir une personne qui, grâce à une garantie
en sa faveur, a le droit de recevoir la somme autrement payable au débiteur
fiscal,
le
ministre peut exiger par écrit de la personne donnée que tout ou partie de
cette somme soit payé au receveur général, sans délai si la somme est payable
immédiatement, sinon dès qu’elle devient payable, au titre du montant de la
cotisation en application du paragraphe 227(10.1) ou d’une disposition
semblable dont le débiteur fiscal est redevable. Sur réception de l’avis de
cette exigence par la personne donnée, la somme dont le paiement est exigé
devient, malgré toute autre garantie au titre de cette somme, la propriété de
Sa Majesté jusqu’à concurrence du montant de la cotisation et doit être payée
au receveur général par priorité sur toute autre garantie au titre de cette
somme.
Définitions
(1.3)
Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent au paragraphe (1.2).
« créancier
garanti »
"secured creditor"
« créancier
garanti » Personne qui a une garantie sur un bien d’une autre personne —
ou qui est mandataire de cette personne quant à cette garantie —, y compris
un fiduciaire désigné dans un acte de fiducie portant sur la garantie, un
séquestre ou séquestre-gérant nommé par un créancier garanti ou par un
tribunal à la demande d’un créancier garanti, un administrateur-séquestre ou
une autre personne dont les fonctions sont semblables à celles de l’une de
ces personnes.
« disposition
semblable »
"similar provision"
« disposition
semblable » Disposition, semblable au paragraphe 227(10.1), d’une loi
provinciale qui prévoit un impôt semblable à celui prévu par la présente loi,
si la province concernée a conclu avec le ministre des Finances un accord
pour le recouvrement des impôts payables à celle-ci en vertu de cette loi
provinciale.
« garantie »
"security interest"
« garantie »
Droit sur un bien qui garantit l’exécution d’une obligation, notamment un
paiement. Sont en particulier des garanties les droits nés ou découlant de débentures,
hypothèques, privilèges, nantissements, sûretés, fiducies réputées ou
réelles, cessions et charges, quelle qu’en soit la nature, de quelque façon
ou à quelque date qu’elles soient créées, réputées exister ou prévues par
ailleurs.
Saisie-arrêt
(1.4)
Les dispositions de la présente loi exigeant qu’une personne verse au
receveur général, par suite d’une requête du ministre en ce sens, un montant
qui serait par ailleurs prêté, avancé ou payé soit à un contribuable
redevable d’une somme aux termes de la présente loi, soit à son créancier
garanti, s’appliquent à Sa Majesté du chef du Canada ou d’une province.
Récépissé
du ministre constituant quittance
(2) Le
récépissé du ministre relatif à des fonds versés, comme l’exige le présent
article, constitue une quittance valable et suffisante de l’obligation
initiale jusqu’à concurrence du paiement.
Durée
de la saisie-arrêt
(3)
Lorsque le ministre a, sous le régime du présent article, exigé d’une
personne qu’elle verse au receveur général, à l’égard d’une obligation
imposée à un débiteur fiscal en vertu de la présente loi, des fonds payables
par ailleurs par cette personne au débiteur fiscal à titre d’intérêt, de
loyer, de rémunération, de dividende, de rente ou autre paiement périodique,
cette exigence s’applique à tous les versements de ce genre à faire par la
personne au débiteur fiscal tant qu’il n’a pas été satisfait à l’obligation
imposée par la présente loi, et porte que des paiements soient faits au
receveur général sur chacun des versements, selon le montant que le ministre
fixe dans l’avis de l’exigence.
Défaut
de se conformer aux par. (1), (1.2) ou (3)
(4)
Toute personne qui omet de se conformer à une exigence du paragraphe (1),
(1.2) ou (3) est tenue de payer à Sa Majesté un montant égal au montant
qu’elle était tenue, en vertu du paragraphe (1), (1.2) ou (3), selon le cas,
de payer au receveur général.
Défaut
de se conformer au par. (1.1)
(4.1)
Toute institution ou personne qui omet de se conformer à une exigence du
paragraphe (1.1) est tenue de payer à Sa Majesté, à l’égard des fonds à
prêter, à avancer ou à payer, un montant égal au moindre des montants
suivants :
a) le
total des fonds ainsi prêtés, avancés ou payés;
b) le
montant qu’elle était tenue de payer au receveur général en vertu de ce
paragraphe.
Signification
de la saisie-arrêt
(5) Si
une personne exploite une entreprise sous un nom ou une raison sociale autre
que son propre nom, l’avis à la personne de l’exigence prévue aux paragraphes
(1), (1.1) ou (1.2) peut être adressé au nom ou à la raison sociale sous
lequel elle exploite l’entreprise et, en cas de signification à personne, est
réputé validement signifié s’il est laissé à une personne adulte employée au
lieu d’affaires du destinataire.
Signification
à une société de personnes
(6) Si
des personnes exploitent une entreprise en société de personnes, l’avis à ces
personnes de l’exigence prévue aux paragraphes (1), (1.1) ou (1.2) peut être
adressé au nom de la société de personnes et, en cas de signification à
personne, est réputé validement signifié s’il l’est à l’un des associés ou
s’il est laissé à une personne adulte employée au lieu d’affaires de la
société de personnes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email this Content