Tax & Trade Blog

One of the more notable differences between Income Tax and GST/HST is that for GST/HST purposes partnerships are expressly defined to be “persons” – separate from the partners of the partnership.  Most provincial sales tax statues take the same approach and define partnerships to be separate legal persons.  However, this is not the case in British Columbia (“BC”), which is the sole Canadian jurisdiction that does not treat partnerships as persons for Provincial Sales Tax (“PST”) purposes.

This could change as the BC Ministry of Finance (the “Ministry”) has released a Consultation Paper seeking feedback on proposed legislative changes to bring BC in line with the rest of Canada.  Subject to public support, the Ministry has identified four legislative or regulatory changes which would be required:

As we blogged about here, experienced indirect tax practitioners will know to always check section 154 of the Excise Tax Act (“ETA”) when dealing with provincial taxes and to think about whether the that provincial tax is excluded from the “consideration” for the supply. If the provincial tax is not excluded, it means that GST will be applied on top of the provincial tax — in effect meaning there will be tax (GST) on the tax (provincial sales tax).

The most recent issue of the CRA Excise and GST/HST News explained how the GST applies on top of British Columbia’s Major Events Municipal and Regional District Tax ( “Major Events Tax” or “MET”) and serves as another example of this principle in practice.

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!

The Tax Court of Canada recently released its decision in Windsor Elms Village for Continuing Care Society v. The King (2023 TCC 58), which dealt with the application of the GST/HST self-supply rules to a long-term care facility for seniors. The decision illustrates the complexity of the self-supply rules under the Excise Tax Act (“ETA”), especially in the context of mixed use or exempt use real estate transactions.

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.