Tax & Trade Blog

The CRA's treatment of "bare trusts" has been problematic from the first days of the GST.

When the GST was first implemented in January 1991, the CRA was initially advising bare trustees of bare trusts (trusts that operating at the behest of their beneficiaries, and where the trustee has no independent authority other than following express directions of the beneficiaries) that it was the bare trustee that was viewed as the supplier for GST purposes, and the person required to register for GST purposes. This position was changed in mid-1992, when the CRA flipping its position, and now advising that bare trustees were not allowed to register, and that the beneficiaries of these bare trusts were the one's required to register.

Directors often ask about creditor-proofing personal assets when facing a possible assessments for "Director's Liability" under Canada's income tax and GST legislation. That question usually follows the director's first understanding that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has special powers in both the Income Tax Act (ITA) and the Excise Tax Act (ETA) to assess a director where a corporation leaves behind unpaid income tax or GST debts, and to realize on (seize) a director's personal assets (e.g,, homes, cottages, cars, monetary savings) to satisfy those debts. (These rules are more specifically found in section 227.1 of the ITA and section 323 of the ETA, and is almost identical.)

Also surprising most directors are special rules in the ITA and ETA allowing the CRA to attack transfers of a director's personal assets to non-arm's-length parties (e.g. wives, children, siblings, parents, etc.) where the value paid by the relatives is less than the fair-market value of the property being transferred. (These rules are found in subsection 160(1) of the ITA and section 325 of the ETA, and are also fairly similar.)

The Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") recently reversed its long standing administrative policy regarding the exempt nature of nursing staffing agencies, taking the position that these services are taxable and not exempt:   see Excise and GST/HST News No. 89 (issued without much fanfare in late Summer 2013).

This effectively decision has effectively reversed the CRA's twenty year old position in GST Memorandum 300-4-2 (Health Care Services, September, 17, 1993) which had previously concluded that these services were all exempt, under section 6 of Part II of Schedule V of the Excise Tax Act.

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has recently been assessing tobacco wholesalers that sell their cigarettes and other tobacco products to status Canadian Indians, on federal Indian reserves, for GST/HST that CRA says should have been collected because their purchasers were dealing with the tobacco on a commercial basis -- something that we would have thought was completely contrary to section 87 of the Indian Act, and the historic exemption from all taxation provided to Indians in respect of property situation on a reserve.

Indeed, one would have thought that the question as to whether tobacco sold and delivered on reserve to a status Indian was exempt of GST/HST was rhetorical (the answer being “yes” per the very clear wording of section 87 of the Indian Act, and over 20 years of CRA policy to the same effect), but it appears that the CRA is attempting to float a “commercial mainstream” argument in favour of its position.

When things go awry in one’s business or personal affairs, taxes often get neglected. The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) does not forget about these tax obligations, however, and has extensive collections powers available to it, including “directors liability” assessments which can transform corporate tax debts into personal tax debts of the affected directors.

The question that many directors and affected personal taxpayers often ask is whether these personal tax debts can be avoided on personal bankruptcy.

The answer is that “it depends”. Recent case law has been swinging toward forcing substantial payments by bankrupts where there are taxes owing to the CRA, as was seen in a recent British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Re Van Eeuwen [2012] GSTC 142.