Section 148

Subsection 148(1)

Cases

Bains v. The Queen, [2005] G.S.T.C. 178, 2005 FCA 378

co-owners not partners

A rental property of a husband and wife found to be held in co-ownership rather than in partnership given that there was no activity beyond that of co-owners and there was no evidence that either of them “had the legal right to bind the other in any matters relating to the property” (“they were both parties to the lease, and the mortgage on the property.” (para. 8).

Accordingly, each co-owner’s taxable supplies were under the $30,000 annual limit.

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Income Tax Act - Section 96 not partners given no evidnce of mutual agency or other partner indicia 69

See Also

Fazal v. The Queen, 2020 TCC 137 (Informal Procedure)

taxpayer was eligible for the s. 166 exclusion for her current proprietorship because her GST registration was in respect of a previous proprietorship

The taxpayer carried on a proprietorship (referred to as Varx Technology) for manufacturing building panels, which was registered in February 2009 with the BC Registry Services and assigned a GST/HST registration. A short time later, the taxpayer incorporated this enterprise under the name Varx Technology Incorporated. She communicated this change with BC Registry Services, and testified that she was assured the “sole proprietorship would be closed”. The now-incorporated business was unsuccessful, and ultimately dissolved, with its GST/HST registration terminated effective July 31, 2014. The taxpayer began to carry on a new business of providing secretarial and administrative services for her husband’s business, and did not report any GST/HST as being remittable for her annual calendar reporting periods for the 2011 through to 2016 years. In 2018, the Minister assessed on the basis that she had made an aggregate of $205,519 in taxable supplies in those six years. Days after that assessment, the BC Registry Services forwarded a certificate of “dissolution of sole proprietorship registration”, dated April 25, 2018, and showing a retroactive date of dissolution of December 31, 2009. On November 20, 2018, she received notification of a “pending cancellation notice” effective December 31, 2017 for the GST/HST Registration of the Varx Technology proprietorship.

Before vacating the assessments of the taxpayer’s 2011 to 2013 years (in which her sales were less than the small supplier threshold) on the basis that she was not a “registrant” in those years, Fournier DJ stated (at paras 18, 24, 28):

[I]n my view, what a “registrant” does to generate revenue matters, in fact it is largely, what defines her status. …

… I appreciate the Appellant would remain a “registrant” within the meaning of the law, in respect of any business activity conducted in the field of technology and manufacturing, in association with Varx Technology Incorporated or its predecessor sole proprietorship. However, having abandoned those initiatives and moved across the country, she took steps to dissolve those ventures and to cancel all related GST/HST registrations. In terms of her new business initiatives providing “secretarial and administrative services” for her husband, in my opinion, she was not a “registrant” within the meaning of the law. As such she should have been allowed to carry on business in her new field of endeavour, without a registration number, provided she qualified as a “small supplier” of goods or services. ...

[The taxpayer] at best was a “registrant” in name only but not so, within the meaning of the law, insofar as we are concerned in these circumstances. … I find it hard to reconcile the notion that somehow a GST/HST registration number could survive the dissolution of its assigned holder.

The assessments for the subsequent (2014 to 2016) years) were confirmed on the basis that she had exceeded the small supplier thresholds for those years (albeit by “a ‘de minimis’ overage of $250” for 2014, as to which he “invite[d] the Minister to exercise his discretion with a view of affording the Appellant some clemency,” perhaps by “allowing her ‘small supplier status’ pursuant to section 148(1)(b)” (para. 30).)

Locations of other summaries Wordcount
Tax Topics - Excise Tax Act - Section 123 - Subsection 123(1) - Registrant an individual’s dissolution of a proprietorship terminated her GST/HST registrant status 155

Administrative Policy

GST/HST Info Sheet GI-196 “GST/HST and Commercial Ride-sharing Services” June 2016

Interaction of expanded taxi-business definition with small supplier exclusion

If you are a small supplier who makes taxable supplies of commercial ride-sharing services and other taxable supplies your registration will generally only apply in respect of your commercial ride-sharing services unless you request otherwise. This means that you will not be required to charge the GST/HST in respect of your other taxable supplies, nor will you be entitled to claim input tax credits (ITCs) in relation to those supplies… . However, if your combined total annual revenue from taxable supplies of commercial ride-sharing services and other taxable supplies exceeds $30,000 (for example, $20,000 for commercial ride-sharing services and $15,000 for other taxable supplies), you will not be considered a small supplier. You will therefore be required to charge and collect tax on all of your revenues from your taxable supplies (the combined $35,000).