We are a super-boutique Canadian tax and trade law firm, with litigation and planning expertise in tax, trade, GST/HST and customs matters. Our client base is comprised of national and international leaders in almost every industry sector who have come to rely on us for the specific and cost-effective litigation services and advice that we can provide.
When matters cannot be resolved with the governmental authorities to our clients’ satisfaction, we represent them in tax and trade litigation before all relevant courts, and at all levels of court, including before the Tax Court of Canada, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada.
Our tax practice includes a focus on Canada’s GST/HST system, which is a multi-level, value-added taxing system, imposed under Canada's Excise Tax Act (the ETA), and administered by the Canada Revenue Agency (the CRA). The GST applies at a 5% rate federally, and the HST applies an additional provincial component by province, resulting in GST/HST rates ranging from 5% to 15% nationally.
Our Customs and Trade practice focuses on all Canadian issues affecting the movement of goods to and from Canada, including tariff classification, origin, valuation, marking, seizures and ascertained forfeitures, and export controls. Our trade practice also includes assisting clients on NAFTA, and Anti-Dumping & Countervail (SIMA) matters, and much much more.
Our firm has a special focus on direct selling companies. Our firm is truly a “one stop shop” for direct sellers looking to expand into the Canadian marketplace. From tax structuring assistance to help with incorporation, to compliance with Canada’s anti-pyramid laws and provincial consumer protection licensing, we have assisted hundreds of direct selling companies in the Canadian marketplace with their legal compliance, including four of the last six DSA Rising Star Award winners!
A couple of recent cases in the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”), which saw the taxpayer and importer, respectively, attempting to appeal earlier Court decisions, have emphasized that tax and trade litigation is a “one-shot deal”, where taxpayers (and importers on the trade side) are required to put their best foot forward in the lower Courts, and will be unlikely to get a second chance at making arguments before the FCA (or the lower Courts) if they do not do so.
Doostyar v. Canada
Doostyar v. Canada was a tax case, appealed to the FCA, in which the taxpayer’s position was that the Tax Court of Canada (“TCC”) erred by not accepting its additional submissions, post hearing.
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.
One thing that usually goes undiscussed when contemplating appeals to the Tax Court of Canada (“TCC”) is what happens if a taxpayer loses.
One thing that CAN happen is a “costs award” against the taxpayer, which is where a TCC judge orders the taxpayer to pay a portion of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) costs in defending the appeal – which puts a significant premium on understanding one’s “chances of success” BEFORE filing the appeal!
Our tax system is complex, with many potential procedural pitfalls that taxpayers need to navigate. One such issue is the jurisdictional boundaries between the Tax Court and the Federal Court for tax disputes. Recent Supreme Court’s companion decisions in Dow Chemical Canada ULC v. Canada (“Dow Chemical”), and Iris Technologies Inc. v. Canada (“Iris”) provide clarifications on this issue. However, these “clarifications” may result in a less streamlined and more costly process and thus may not be good news for taxpayers.
We have blogged here and here about the real estate projects that the CRA is currently working on, usually resulting in assessments of GST/HST on sales of renovated homes or short-term rental housing.
In a recent Tax Court case involving Cheema, the CRA was permitted to open up statue-barred periods in order to assess a homeowner for taxable income generated from a short-term purchase and resale of a house in Calgary. This case serves as a warning for taxpayers in similar situations: treating housing like “inventory” to produce gains will result in CRA assessments —even many years later, making Voluntary Disclosures the only viable strategy for addressing past exposure.
As announced in the Liberal-NDO Coalition Government’s 2024 Budget, and at a time when the government seems hard-pressed to increase taxation in Canada to deal with the massive spending over the last few years, the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) has been given some brand new tax Audit powers – which to some respects are downright frightening.
A common theme of our direct selling blogs is that direct selling businesses should pay close attention to the wording of their key documents (compensation plans, contracts, and policies and procedures, etc.) to ensure that plan participants are properly characterized as independent contractors and not as employees.
While not in a direct selling context, a recent decision at the Tax Court of Canada serves as a cautionary tale for businesses that fail to examine the details of their documents – their workers may be characterized contrary to their intentions!
All taxpayers under audit should be aware of both the scope and limitations of Canada Revenue Agency’s audit powers, as well as the consequence of failing to respond to a CRA Auditor’s valid request for documents or information.
The Federal Cout decisions in Canada v. Money Stop Ltd. (2013 FC 133), and Canada v. Money Stop Ltd. (2013 FC 684) are poignant reminders that ignoring the demands of a CRA auditor may land the Director(s) of the Corporation in prison!
Tax assessments are difficult to appeal in Canada because the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) is allowed to make factual ‘assumptions’ which the taxpayer must disprove – or lose its case!
Two recent Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) decisions have seemingly expanded these powers to assumptions of “mixed fact and law” – although the second FCA seemingly walks back the first.
In Ghermezian v. MNR, 2023 FCA 183, the Federal Court of Appeal may have put the last nail in the coffin for taxpayers trying to dispute the broad reach of the CRA’s audit powers.
CRA’s Use of 3rd Party Requests for Information
The case revolved around the CRA’s Related Party Initiative, and the CRA’s issuance of various requests and requirements for information under section 231.1 of the Income Tax Act (and parallel provisions in section 289 of the Excise Tax Act (alternatively, the “RFIs” and the “Demands”, and the “ITA” and “ETA”).
