Tax & Trade Blog

Staffing agencies (as well as Employment Agencies, Temporary Labour, Placement Agencies and other similar entities – “Agencies”) play a growing role in connecting businesses with Canadian workers, but these models can come with unexpected tax “strings attached”.

For example, did you know that in some cases, Agencies hiring workers classified as independent contractors can still be required to make Canada Pension Plan (“CPP”) and Employment Insurance (“EI”) contributions (as if the workers were their employees)?  This tax quirk can be difficult to understand, especially when the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) views one’s workers to be non-employees!

After COVID, the CRA seems to be really ramping up its audit activities, both for GST/HST and income tax matters.  Once a Notice of Assessment is issued, reversing the CRA’s position becomes an uphill battle as the Objection and Appeal processes are technical and complex.

This blog focuses on the Objection and Appeal processes under the Excise Tax Act (the “ETA”), highlighting common pitfalls and the need for a strategic approach in tax disputes.

As we have written here and here, CRA is ALL over the Canadian real estate industry, assessing homebuyers, condo renters and everyone in between for GST/HST and income taxes related to use or sale of houses or condos on the suspicion of business or trading activities.

When using one’s home or other real estate holdings for business or trading purpose (CRA calls this an “adventure or concern in the nature of trade”), significant tax consequences can arise, as highlighted in CRA ruling from back in 2020, reviewed below.

Canada’s “Luxury Tax” implemented under the Select Luxury Items Tax Act (“SLITA”) has been a significant development for vendors, importers and buyers of high-priced vehicles, aircraft and vessels.  As we have previously discussed here, the SLITA imposes tax obligations that require careful compliance, including registration and record keeping.

Recently, the CRA released a new guidance document clarifying how third-party rebates impact the calculation of tax owing under the SLITA.  The main message is straightforward but significant – rebates from manufacturers or other third parties do not reduce the taxable value of luxury items and do not lower the amount of tax vendors and importers must pay!

After more than 30 years, the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) is revoking an administrative arrangement with the Canadian Dental Association that simplified claiming input tax credits (“ITCs”) for GST/HST registered dental practitioners who make both taxable zero-rated supplies (e.g., orthodontic appliances and cosmetic services) and tax-exempt supplies (e.g., dental and orthodontic services). 

Per CRA Notice 339, the CRA is revoking its administrative arrangement as it moves towards a stricter adherence to the rules in the Excise Tax Act (“ETA”) – likely requiring more detailed records. 

This shift appears to be a response to recent Court decisions holding that supplies of orthodontic appliances and orthodontic services are separate supplies – opening up the ability to claim ITCs (which we have written about here). 

The changes take effect beginning as early as January 1, 2025!