Jamie Golombek: A latest tax case deemed a spouse responsible for the tax debt of her husband below the joint legal responsibility rule
Opinions and proposals are unbiased and merchandise are independently chosen. Postmedia could earn an affiliate fee from purchases made by way of hyperlinks on this web page.
Article content material
Should you owe cash to the Canada Revenue Agency, it’s fairly arduous to keep away from paying up. In actual fact, even when it’s your partner or accomplice that owes the CRA cash, relying on the circumstances, you would be held personally responsible for paying your partner’s tax money owed. A latest tax case, determined earlier this month, reveals how the CRA can invoke the “joint legal responsibility rule” in part 160 of the Earnings Tax Act to gather a tax debt.
Commercial 2
Article content material
Article content material
Article content material
Earlier than delving into the main points of this newest case, let’s evaluation what the regulation says in regards to the tax money owed of others. Below the joint legal responsibility rule, the CRA has the facility to carry a person responsible for the tax money owed of somebody with whom they’ve a non-arm’s size relationship in the event that they’ve been concerned in a transaction seen to keep away from tax.
“Non-arm’s size” refers to people who’re associated — sometimes blood kinfolk, a partner or common-law accomplice — in addition to an organization and its shareholders, and anybody else the CRA believes is factually not at arm’s size with one another.
4 standards have to be met for the CRA to efficiently win a joint-liability evaluation: there should have been a switch of property; the transferor and the transferee should not have been dealing at arm’s size; there should not have been enough consideration paid by the transferee to the transferor; and the transferor should have had an impressive tax legal responsibility on the time of the switch.
Within the latest case, which has been within the courts for almost six years, the taxpayer was assessed below part 160 of the Tax Act on the premise that she obtained property valued at $10,650 from her husband at a time when her husband owed greater than that quantity to the CRA. The consequence of part 160 making use of is that the transferee should pay the quantity owing to the CRA as much as the consideration they obtained from the transferor.
High Tales
Article content material
Commercial 3
Article content material
Between April 2012 and June 2013 the taxpayer’s husband made 4 totally different transfers of property to his spouse totaling $10,650. These transfers have been made by cheques from the husband’s private checking account to the taxpayer’s private checking account. Since they have been married, they’re clearly non-arm’s size individuals for the needs of part 160.
The CRA took the place that the taxpayer didn’t present any consideration to her husband for the switch of the property. However in courtroom, the taxpayer argued that she supplied full consideration for the switch of the property as a result of she had “beforehand lent her husband numerous quantities of cash and that the cheques in query have been repayments of these loans.”
The decide remarked that so as to have the ability to justify the taxpayer’s “self-serving assertion” that the transfers have been mortgage repayments and never mere transfers of money, there wanted to be both some type of documentary proof, or possibly even testimony from the husband in courtroom.
The one documentary proof supplied to help the taxpayer’s assertion is the truth that the memo traces on the cheques comprise the phrases “payback” or “mortgage payback.” There have been no promissory notes nor mortgage agreements, and there was no system for recording the excellent steadiness of those “purported” loans at any given time. The decide acknowledged that “monetary preparations between spouses are typically looser than monetary preparations between third events.” Due to that, he didn’t count on there to be in depth documentation, since loans between spouses are “the exception, not the rule.” However, when such loans are made, the decide famous that he “would count on to see (them) recorded or documented in some method past a memo line on a cheque.” At a minimal, the decide stated, he would have wished to see proof of cheques with related memo traces going from the taxpayer to her husband when the loans have been first superior.
Commercial 4
Article content material
When the trial first began again in April 2019, the taxpayer didn’t name her husband as a witness as a result of he was overseas. Her daughter, appearing because the taxpayer’s agent in courtroom, contacted her father by cellphone and reported that he had documentary proof at residence that will present that his money owed have been lower than $10,650. Based mostly on this, the decide agreed to adjourn the listening to of the enchantment and permit the spouse to re-open her proof in an effort to name her husband as a witness.
Following delays as a consequence of COVID, the Tax Court docket scheduled the continuation of the case for October 2022. After the Court docket Registry had closed on the final enterprise day earlier than the trial was to be heard, the taxpayer requested an adjournment for medical causes.
Since that adjournment, the Tax Court docket has made quite a few unsuccessful makes an attempt to reschedule the continuation of the trial, however neither the taxpayer nor her daughter made any try to work with the courtroom to discover a means for the listening to to proceed.
Within the intervening years, the taxpayer turned very in poor health, however her presence wasn’t really required in courtroom for the case to proceed. The decide was merely searching for her husband to testify as to the character or quantity of the tax debt which he had disputed was owing.
Commercial 5
Article content material
Quick ahead to December 2024, after greater than two years of making an attempt to maneuver the case alongside, when the decide gave the taxpayer three choices: proceed the trial in March 2025, when she might name her husband as a witness; proceed the trial with out him being referred to as as a witness; or file written closing arguments by February 28, 2025, and the decide would resolve the result primarily based on these submissions.
Beneficial from Editorial
The taxpayer didn’t reply to any of those choices, nor to a voicemail message from the courtroom, at which level the decide was left with no selection however to resolve the case primarily based on the proof introduced thus far. The decide drew an “hostile inference” from the taxpayer’s failure to provide her husband as a witness, and concluded that she didn’t accomplish that as a result of he doesn’t even have the proof to help her assertion that there was no underlying tax debt. The decide due to this fact discovered the taxpayer responsible for the $10,650 of tax money owed owing by her husband.
Jamie Golombek, FCPA, FCA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Property Planning with CIBC Non-public Wealth in Toronto. Jamie.Golombek@cibc.com.
Should you appreciated this story, join extra within the FP Investor publication.
Bookmark our web site and help our journalism: Don’t miss the enterprise information it is advisable to know — add financialpost.com to your bookmarks and join our newsletters here.
Article content material
