Cases
3533158 Canada Inc. v. Canada (the Attorney General), 2024 FC 1090
After learning from CRA that its US parent, which was its agent pursuant to s. 177, had been claiming input tax credits (ITCs) which should have been claimed by it, the appellant (353) filed a single global GST/HST return covering a four-year period, which CRA declined to process after a delay of five months, and required 353 to file quarterly returns. Régimbald J found that the five-month delay also would have been justified by the fact that the GST/HST registration of 353 at the time of filing the global return had an effective date subsequent to a portion of the period covered in the global return and also in some of the subsequently-filed quarterly returns (although CRA did not discover this deficiency until later.) In this regard, he found that 353 did not adduce evidence that it had made any taxable supplies in the initial reporting periods for which it was not registered and that it therefore was not a registrant (i.e., required to be registered) in those reporting periods when it filed the global return.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 296 - Subsection 296(4) - Paragraph 296(4)(b) | CRA was precluded on assessing in allowing ITCs beyond the 4-year limitation period | 543 |
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 238 - Subsection 238(1) | global return covering 4 years was invalid | 103 |
| Tax Topics - Statutory Interpretation - Interpretation Act - Section 32 | failure of return covering 4 years to allocate to component reporting periods was fundamental and not cured by s. 32 | 103 |
| Tax Topics - Other Legislation/Constitution - Federal - Federal Courts Act - Section 18.1 - Subsection 18.1(2) | taxpayer did not demonstrate that CRA delays in processing its ITC claims represented undue delay | 475 |
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 296 - Subsection 296(1) - Paragraph 296(1)(a) | CRA justified in refusing to assess a single GST return covering multiple reporting periods | 182 |
See Also
Fazal v. The Queen, 2020 TCC 137 (Informal Procedure)
An individual carried on a proprietorship, which was registered for GST/HST purposes, and shortly thereafter incorporated that proprietorship, with the corporation receiving a fresh GST/HST registration. The business was unsuccessful, and the corporation was dissolved, and she began to carry on a fresh and quite separate business, as a proprietorship. Although in the initial three years, her annual sales came under the small supplier threshold of $30,000, CRA nonetheless ultimately assessed those years on the basis that she (personally) was still registered. (Under ETA s. 166, a small supplier must not be a registrant in order to be excluded.)
Fournier DJ vacated those assessments. He appeared to consider that because the previous proprietorship was dissolved, therefore she was no longer a registrant because the proprietorship respecting which she had registered no longer existed. He also suggested that CRA exercise “clemency” respecting a year in which she exceeded the $30,000 threshold by only $250.
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 148 - Subsection 148(1) | taxpayer was eligible for the s. 166 exclusion for her current proprietorship because her GST registration was in respect of a previous proprietorship | 518 |
Restaurant Loupy's inc. v. The Queen, 2016 TCC 260 (Informal Procedure)
Favreau J found that, notwithstanding the revocation of its revocation, the taxpayer was still a “registrant” – whose definition includes a “person who is required to be registered” - given that it still held equipment which it was seeking to sell (some of which it sold eight months’ later). Thus, it was not subject to the deemed supply under s. 171(3)(b).
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 171 - Subsection 171(3) | continued to be registrant following revocation of registration number | 314 |
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 240 - Subsection 240(1) | winding-down operations qualified a de-registrant as a “registrant”/registration retroactive | 212 |
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 141.1 - Subsection 141.1(3) - Paragraph 141.1(3)(a) | holding discontinued equipment | 151 |
Administrative Policy
CBAO National Commodity Tax, Customs and Trade Section – 2014 GST/HST Questions for Revenue Canada, Q. 15
If an FI is not required to register for GST/HST purposes and chooses not to register voluntarily, it would not be a GST/HST registrant by virtue of an account that has been opened for the purpose of processing a self-assessment of GST/HST under Division IV.
The CRA distinguishes between RT accounts of registrants and non-registrants based on the status indicated on our system.
6 July 2012 Headquarters Letter Case No. 142921
A taxpayer which absent a s. 150 election would not have been a small supplier and had made such election on a valid basis with two financial institutions who were closely related then had its registration inadvertently cancelled. At that time, the "closely related" related definition required that it be a "registrant." Ruling that such cancellation "did not cancel the Election under section 150 since the Taxpayer would have been required to be registered, i.e., was a registrant, throughout the period in question."
| Locations of other summaries | Wordcount | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 150 - Subsection 150(1) | 86 |