Tax & Trade Blog

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 a tax lawyer assisting clients in defending themselves against the all-powerful CRA (and its equally powerful ally, the Department of Justice – Canada’s largest and best-equipped law firm), I welcome any judicial decisions that help to right that power imbalance. 

Justice Patrick Boyle’s recent decision in Frigorific Warehouse is an exceptional attempt at addressing an inherent problem with Canada’s GST/HST system, which lacks proper mechanisms to deal with tax rogues who gain access to the CRA’s registration system to charge, collect and abscond with GST/HST funds from unsuspecting Canadian businesses. The CRA’s traditional position has been to attempt to recover the lost GST/HST from these unsuspecting businesses (by denying them input tax credits – “ITCs”). Justice Boyle’s decision seems to put that ability into serious question!

When a specialty tax practice like our own, focussed on GST/HST and other indirect taxes, sees a plethora of inquiries from homeowners being either assessed by the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) on the sale of their homes, or threatened with such assessments, we know that something is up!

As we have previously written, the CRA continues targeting residential homeowners. Specifically, those who have sold their home in a short period of time after: (1) substantially renovating; or (2) commissioning the construction of a new home for their own use.

As we wrote here, Canada’s rules taxing Vaping Products were first enacted in 2018, with the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act (“TVPA”), continue to involve, with a number of provinces and territories now getting into the taxing game.  While the TVPA sets out a regulatory framework for manufacturers, importers, retailers and any other business involved in the vaping industry, the provincial rules center largely on ensuring their allocation of the taxes from this new found source of tax income!

The Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) has recently released some new Guidance on how all of these taxes are supposed to work together, but the policy goal of this (i.e., taxing something that in many eyes is meant to be an alternative to an incredibly-bad-for-your-health smoking habit) remains suspect.

Businesses engaged exclusively in commercial activities get full input tax credits (“ITCs”) enabling them to recover all the GST/HST they pay in the course of their business activities.  Organizations engaged exclusively in “exempt” activities (financial services, healthcare, educational-related institutions) get no ITCs, meaning that GST/HST is a hard cost in their business. 

In between the two are businesses that carry on BOTH commercial and exempt activities, and in order to determine the ITCs these businesses are eligible to claim, a “fair and reasonable” allocation method has to be used.  A recent decision of the Tax Court of Canada (the “TCC”) in Marine Atlantic Inc. v. The King (2023 TCC 95) explores what that really means.