Tax & Trade Blog

While anti-dumping and subsidy investigations are not uncommon, they do not always result in duties being imposed. As a case in point, the Canada Border Services Agency (the “CBSA”) recently closed its investigation into “Drill Pipes” originating in or exported from China because the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the “CITT”) did not find injury or a threat of injury.

Tax practitioners are unfortunately well-aware of the sometimes years-long delays when requesting rulings and relief from CRA. What is less understood is the interplay between often overlapping taxpayer relief mechanisms when statutory deadlines are close to expiry, but the desired relief remains ungranted.

The recent Federal Court decision in Ontario Addiction Treatment Centres v. Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 393  (CanLII) dealt with this issue, and provides a cautionary tale that registrants should consider filing protective ETA 261  rebate claims within the proper legislative timelines while they otherwise wait for relief, otherwise they may find themselves out of time and with no further options.

While New York City’s (in)famous soda ban was ultimately struck down, in the years since other jurisdictions have moved forward with their own schemes to regulate sweetened beverages – now including Newfoundland & Labrador (“NL”).

On September 1, 2022, NL will introduce its so-called “Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax” (“SSBT”). Interestingly, despite ostensibly being introduced to encourage “better beverage choices”, the tax does not depend on the amount of sugar in the drink – just the amount of drink itself!

On February 24, 2022, the Canada Border Services Agency (the “CBSA”) issued a Notice of Initiation of Investigation under the Special Import Measures Act (“SIMA”) with respect to the alleged dumping and subsidizing of mattresses originating in or exported from China (the “Subject Goods”).

See our previous blog for more information on the precise definition of the Subject Goods, including exclusions.

While the CBSA Investigation was ongoing, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the “CITT”) conducted a separate Preliminary Injury Inquiry, as required under subsection 34(2) of SIMA.

Canada’s federal government recently took the steps necessary to impose significant limits on the manufacture, import and sale of certain single-use plastic goods. While the scope of goods covered by the regulations is relatively limited, importers should be aware of them – and be alerted to the fact that regulation may not stop with these specific goods!

Canada’s rules on vaping products have been undergoing substantial change over the last little while, starting with the 2018 enactment of the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act (“TVPA”). While the TVPA set up a new regulatory framework, the rules have seemingly grown in complexity since, with far-reaching implications for manufacturers, importers, retailers and any other business involved in the vaping industry.

Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) resets it “audit priority areas” twice a year. This sees CBSA designate certain tariff classification codes as priority areas for custom verifications (i.e., ‘audits’), based on the CBSA’s belief that those goods pose significant risks for non-compliance in terms of proper tariff classification, valuation, and country of origin.

CBSA has now released its July 2022 Trade Compliance Verifications, announcing a new priority area, as well as providing updates on a number of ongoing projects, which we have summarized below.

Seizures of cash have been increasing in Canada, usually at major airports, where Canada Border Service Agency (CBSA) agents are tasked with policing and enforcing Canada’s Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (the “Money Laundering Act” or the “MLA” for short).

Unfortunately, more often than not, the cash seems to be seized from unsuspecting travellers with good intentions, who are not involved in criminal activities but are simply unaware of their legal obligation to declare the proper amounts of cash they are traveling with when crossing international borders.

As we have blogged about several times in the past, homebuilders are frequently in the gunsights of CRA in hopes of capturing potentially unremitted GST/HST on sales made the course of their commercial activity.

A less-explored issue is how CRA sometimes casts too wide a net, and mistakenly assesses unlucky individuals who are not builders, but whose facts may suggest otherwise. The recent case in Wang v. The Queen, 2021 TCC 86 (CanLII) deals with this issue and serves as a cautionary tale for individuals in the unfortunate position of staring down a CRA assessment on the unplanned sale of their new home.

Times are changing for Canadian private corporations in terms of transparency and publicly available information. As of October 1, 2020, private companies in British Columbia have been required to maintain a registry of beneficial owners. Similarly, Québec’s transparency registry statute received Royal Assent on June 8, 2021. The Federal Government has also announced in its 2021 Budget that a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry would be in place by 2025.

Not to be outdone, Ontario has joined the growing number of Canadian jurisdictions “pulling back the curtain” on private corporations, with plans to impose its own rules for registering beneficial ownership (the “Ontario Rules”). With the Ontario Rules set to come into force on January 1, 2023, the province will likely “leapfrog” the Federal Government.

Border searches can be nerve-wracking experiences, particularly if it involves an officer looking through your phone or laptop. Canadians and international visitors may therefore be surprised to know that thanks to a 2020 Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) decision, the CBSA does not currently have the right to search personal digital devices (“PDDs”) at ports of entry – at least in Alberta!

While this quirk looks like it will be temporary as the government has introduced Bill S-7 to address this issue, travellers should be aware of the amendments to the Customs Act (the “Act”) which are currently proposed, and might impact the state of the law going forward.

In the world of “natural health products” (“NHPs”), “NFR” is all the rage.   It is commonly believed that the NFR exception allows virtually any NHP to be imported to Canada, provided each importation is transacted in no more than a 90-day supply.

The key words here are “commonly believed”.   You might also say “commonly misunderstood” – and here is why.

It seems that the only thing hotter than inflation these days is CRA’s auditing and assessments in missing traders, carousel schemes and shams. Affected industries so far include telecom, gold and precious metals, diamonds and precious gems – and even include mom-and-pop start-ups in the home-made muffins industry.   Left unchallenged, these assessments can invariably lead to corporate bankruptcy and insolvency and, more problematically, can involve personal assessments of directors, spouses and children!

The primary customs valuation method across the Western world is “transaction value”, which is a way of valuing goods coming across international borders. Transaction value is used by both the US Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) to value imported goods entering their respective territories.

After our February blog post, the Department of Finance finally released draft legislation for its “luxury tax” on vehicles, aircraft and vessels (“items”). Assuming it is passed, the Select Luxury Items Tax Act (“SLITA”) is scheduled to come into force on September 1, 2022. Any business selling items to which SLITA applies will have to register with the federal government, pay the luxury tax, and file quarterly returns!

Taxpayers who seek to challenge tax assessments made by the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) usually have the right to file a Notice of Objection (“Objection”), and those Objections are usually due within 90 days of the mailing date of the assessment.

Objection is the first and most important step of the taxpayers appeal process for any tax assessment, and the 90-day deadline generally should not be missed. For taxpayers that have missed the 90-day deadline, all hope is not lost, as there are special rules that might allow for a late-filed Objection. Taxpayers seeking to benefit from these rules should generally seek legal advice to understand and select the most appropriate next steps!

As covered in a prior blog, Canada has one of the most tightly-controlled dairy industries in the world.  It is not surprising then that the first decision of a dispute resolution panel (“Panel”) under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (“CUSMA”) would involve Canada's dairy “supply management” system (the “Dairy Decision”).  

Ultimately, despite a US victory, the limited scope of the Dairy Decision means that any changes expected from Canada are unlikely to satisfy US-based dairy producers – with both sides seemingly claiming victory!

On March 25, 2022 the Canada Border Services Agency (the “CBSA”) issued a Notice of Initiation of Investigation under the Special Import Measures Act (“SIMA”) of alleged dumping and subsidizing of “Drill Pipes” originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China. This investigation was prompted by a complaint filed by Command Drilling Products Ltd. of Nisku, Alberta.

In December 2021, the Department of Finance (“DOF”) released its draft Digital Services Tax Act (“DSTA”) announced in the 2021 Federal Budget. The proposed tax will impose a 3% digital services tax (“DST”) on large businesses providing taxable digital services to Canadian users – mirroring recent efforts discussed at the OECD to address the tax challenges of the digital economy.

While the DOF indicates that these measures will not be imposed earlier than January 1, 2024, and only if the treaty implementing the OECD Pillar One tax regime has not come into force, taxpayers should prepare for these changes now, since the revenue calculation requirements start as early as January 2022!

Despite its shaky initial rollout, the new Ontario Business Registry (“OBR”) looks like it is here to stay. Companies incorporated or doing business in Ontario (or indeed looking to potentially expand into the province) need to be aware of the substantial changes the new system brings.

This blog post will focus on changes to the process of filing annual returns in Ontario. Readers are reminded that the information provided is of a general nature and are advised to seek advice for their own particular situation, including regarding changes beyond the annual returns process.