Raposo – Federal Court of Appeal finds that the voidness under the Civil Code of a partnership with an unlawful business applied for GST purposes

The taxpayer and the three other members of the “Raposo clan” were involved in the sale of cocaine in the Gatineau area. CRA took the position that, as a member of a partnership, the taxpayer was solidarily liable under ETA s. 272.1(5) for uncollected GST on the cocaine sales. This rested on the proposition that in order for there to be a partnership, it was sufficient for the elements of the definition of a contract of partnership in Art. 2186 of the Civil Code to be satisfied, and that it did not matter that Art. 1413 provided: “A contract whose object is prohibited by law or contrary to public order is null." It considered that it was contrary to the principle of “tax neutrality” that the consequences of the activities should be affected by whether or not they were unlawful and by in which province they were carried out.

Montigny JA considered these contentions to be contrary to s. 8.1 of the Interpretation Act, which provided that a federal provision referencing property law rules should reference those of the applicable province “unless otherwise provided by law.” Examples of federal provisions which effected such ouster “by law” were ss. ITA s. 160 and ETA s. 325, which through using the broad term “transfer” rather than “sale,” “the legislator was assured that any activity, lawful or not, was covered”, whereas the legislator “did not do the same in section 272.1.”

He noted that not respecting the void character under the Civil Code of a partnership contract for carrying out an illegal activity would have the “absurd consequence” that, on the one hand, the taxpayer would be held liable for the entirely of the uncollected GST of the unlawful activity, whereas, on the other hand, “given the illegality of those activities, the taxpayer would not have any recourse … to reclaiming, from the co-debtors, their respective portion of the total debt before a civil court.” He also acknowledged that the effect of s. 8.1 could be to produce a patchwork effect across Canada.

The Crown’s s. 272.1(5) claim failed.

Neal Armstrong. Summaries of Canada v. Raposo, 2019 CAF 208 under General Concepts – Illegality, Statutory Interpretation - Interpretation Act, s. 8.1 and ITA s. 96.