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) | 82 |