Tax & Trade Blog

Businesses in the automotive sector will be interested in the recent conclusion to the automotive trade dispute between Canada, the US, and Mexico (the “USMCA Parties”).

The USMCA Parties had different interpretations of the automotive rules in the Canada-United States-Mexico trade Agreement (the “USMCA”), which required a USMCA Panel to be formed to review the different interpretations and settle the dispute.

The Panel publicly released its final decision on January 11, 2023 (the “Decision”).

This decision is important because it makes it easier for automotive producers to receive preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA, which will help the USMCA Parties save costs when importing and exporting vehicles between the USMCA Parties.

The third and final phase of the Canada Border Services Agency’s (“CBSA”) Assessment and Revenue Management (“CARM”) project (i.e., “CARM R2”) now has a clear target date for release – October 2023! The exact implementation date will depend on when draft regulations, released on November 26, 2022, will be finalized. Importers, brokers, freight-forwarders, and anyone else interested in CARM has until January 10, 2023 to provide feedback on the regulations!

The draft regulations will tweak existing regulations to bring them in-line with how the CBSA envisages CARM applying in practice. Hopefully, this will take Canadian customs into the digital age more smoothly than some other recent Federal IT projects!

On December 29, 2022, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (“CITT”) released an Order continuing the CITT’s original 2012 finding that the dumping and subsidizing of oil country tubular good pup joints (“pup joints) originating in or exported from China was threatening to cause injury to Canadian domestic injury.

The Order effectively means that the current anti-dumping duties (“ADDs”) of up to 173.4% and countervailing duties (“CVDs”) of 9,125.6 Renminbi per metric tonne will remain in place for Subject Goods originating in or exported from China.

On December 12, 2022, the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) issued a notice that it will be conducting a normal value review of refined sugar exported from the US by United Food Group Inc. (“United”).

Unlike re-investigations, where the CBSA reviews and redetermines normal values for all exporters in the industry, in a normal value review CBSA will only review the normal values of the named party – in this case United. (That said, CBSA will sometimes conduct normal value reviews in respect of 2-3 exporters at around the same time and may sync up their schedules so it issues decisions more or less at the same time.)

If a person intends to carry CAD $10,000 or more in Cash over Canada’s border (either entering or exiting Canada), the person carrying the cash must declare the amount being carried to Canadian Border Services Agency (“CBSA”). If a CBSA officer determines that a traveller is carrying undeclared cash and suspects that it may be proceeds of a crime, the CBSA may seized the cash and hold it until the matter is proven otherwise. A recent Federal Court decision in Evans v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2022 FC 1516 (“Evans”) serves notice that while there are appeal mechanisms available, it can be extremely difficult to overturn these seizures.

Whether a supply is taxable under the Excise Tax Act (“ETA”) can depend, in part, on how that supply is characterized. In normal commercial relations, businesses will often bundle many diverse services together – including both taxable and exempt services. Once bundled together, one must consider whether they remain multiple supplies, or whether they now constitute one single supply. If a single supply, one must then determine the character of that supply, which can impact whether it is taxable or exempt.

The courts’ approach to characterizing bundled supplies has evolved over the last few years. This was especially apparent in last year’s Federal Court of Canada (“FCA”) decision in Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Canada, 2021 FCA 96 (“CIBC 2021”), which was recently denied leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) — making it the law of the land.

The recent Tax Court of Canada (“TCC”) decision in Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. The Queen, 2022 TCC 83 (“CIBC 2022”), is an example of how the TCC is now applying the FCA’s text-focused approach to other GST/HST characterization cases.

2023 is shaping up to be quite a year for businesses operating in the real estate industry, with the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) continuing aggressive industry audits (which have now made their way to court), and new tax rules for new housing assignments under the Excise Tax Act (“ETA”) and house flippers under the Income Tax Act (“ITA”)!

Since the inception of the GST/HST in 1991, the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) has taken what we consider to be a strict approach to the documentary/information requirements under section 169(4) of the Excise Tax Act (“ETA”), which must be met in order to claim input tax credits (“ITCs” and the “ITC Information Requirements”). This approach has likely lead to millions if not billions of ITC denials, leaving GST/HST registrants unable to recover GST/HST paid on their business inputs, and leaving the costs of their goods and services artificially too high – because of this unrecoverable GST/HST left embedded in the system.

In what we regard as potentially the most important case in decades, the Tax Court of Canada’s (“TCC”) decision in CFI Funding Trust (2022 TCC 60) underscores that CRA’s strict approach is overly technical and incorrect!

First Nations individuals are granted special tax status under section 87 of the Indian Act (the “Act”) which effectively exempts them from taxation in respect of personal property “situated on a reserve” (the “s. 87 exemption”). This unique exemption transcends all taxing legislation in Canada, federal or provincial.

The courts’ interpretation of s. 87 has evolved over the years but, until now, it has only applied in the context of reserve property.

A recent decision of the British Columbia (“BC”) Court of Appeal (“BCCA”) has seemingly expanded the scope of s. 87 to off-reserve property – albeit in the context of a Band that no longer had a reserve.

On November 28, 2022, the Canadian international Trade Tribunal (“CITT”) issued a notice that it will be conducting an expiry review of its finding regarding stainless steel sinks originating or exported from China. Anyone wanting to participate in the expiry review must file a Notice of Participation with the CITT by December 13, 2022!

Both domestic producers and exporters should consider participating in the expiry review, as current anti-dumping duties (“ADDs”) for goods without a normal value are 103.1%, and countervailing duties (“CVDs”) are 264.94 Renmibi per unit!

On November 3, 2022, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (“CITT”) released reasons in respect of its October 19th Expiry Review Order. The Order continued the CITT’s original 2017 finding that the dumping of gypsum board originating in or exported from the United States has caused injury to Canadian domestic injury.

The Order effectively means that the current anti-dumping duties (“ADDs”) of up to 324.1% will remain in place for Subject Goods originating in or exported from the United States.

The effect of the Canada Revenue Agency’s (“CRA”) administrative policies on GST/HST audits is often misunderstood by taxpayers and CRA auditors alike. While policies carry some interpretive value, they do not supplant actual law in the form of legislation and regulations.

This sometimes makes relying on CRA administrative policy a risky proposition, particularly where the policy provides a benefit or relief against the legislation and regulations. This is because where CRA assesses a registrant for non-compliance with a beneficial policy, the Tax Court is bound to apply the legislation and regulations as-written, and cannot allow a CRA policy – even one that benefits the taxpayers – to take precedence over the law.

The decision in Dr. Kevin L. Davis Dentistry Professional Corporation v. The Queen, 2021 TCC 25 (“Dr. Davis Dentistry”) considered this very issue.

On October 31, 2022, the Canadian Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) issued a notice that it will be conducting a re-investigation in respect of corrosion-resistant steel sheet (“COR”) imported from China, Chinese Taipei (i.e., Taiwan), India and South Korea (the “Listed Countries”). CBSA has issued a Request for Information (“RFI”) to both exporters and importers, and responses are due December 7, 2022!

Normal values established during the re-investigation will be effective as of the end date of the re-investigation, and all normal values currently in place will expire on that date.

On September 14, 2022, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (“CITT”) issued an Order continuing its finding of a “threat of injury” in respect of copper pipe fittings originating in or exported from the United States, South Korea, or China (“CPF”).

The Order effectively means that the current anti-dumping duties (“ADDs”) of up to 242% will remain in place for Subject Goods originating in or exported from the listed countries, along with countervailing duties (“CVDs”) of 17.73 Renminbi per kilogram for goods originating in or exported from China.

We have recently seen many clients make improper “corrections” or “amendments” to previously-filed GST Returns, which ultimately causes even more problems, and leads to unrecoverable GST!

In fact, there is no legislative basis for filing a corrected or amended GST Return.  We regularly see clients who chose to deal with errors by making “after-the-fact” changes to “GST collectible” or “GST credits claimed” in later periods – perhaps believing that if net tax was under-reported in January, it can be fixed by adding extra “net tax” to July!

While errors on GST Returns are a fact of life, the way that these mistakes are corrected can cause bigger problems (think: lost money)!

As we blogged about here and here, CRA has recently focused its audit powers to investigate allegations of shams (i.e., fraud) in the application of GST in the telecommunications industry.

The alleged fraudulent activities come in many forms and can even involve allegations of so-called GST ‘carousel schemes’. Below, we highlight two cases currently working their way through courts and the takeaway points for businesses unlucky enough to be facing similar situations.

Effective July 1, 2022, tobacco retail dealers in British Columbia (“BC”) must register to collect and remit provincial sales tax (“PST”).

The tobacco industry is no stranger to high taxes and complicated regulatory schemes – but BC appears made the situation even worse, by making provincial sales tax (“PST”) apply on top of its pre-existing stand-alone tobacco tax!

Tax professionals are well aware of how critical it is to file Notices of Objection on time — generally within 90 days of the mailing of a Notice of Assessment. For professionals and taxpayers who find themselves unable to have met this deadline, section 303 of the Excise Tax Act (the “ETA”) (and section 166.1 of the Income Tax Act) provides some potential relief (i.e., an extension to file, provided certain preconditions are met).

A recent Tax Court of Canada (“TCC”) decision in Lamarnic & J Ltd. v. The Queen (2022 TCC 35) explores this rule but, at the same time, serves as a cautionary tale for taxpayers and tax professionals alike that these extension rules may only be available if the rules are strictly adhered to within set statutory timelines.

On October 14, 2022, the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) issued a notice that it will be conducting a re-investigation in respect of oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) and certain seamless casing originating in or exported from China.  Responses to the CBSA’s Request for Information (“RFI”) are due November 21, 2022!

Normal values established during the re-investigation will be effective as of the end date of the re-investigation, and all normal values currently in place will expire on that date.  Exporters of Subject Goods from China should consider cooperating with CBSA, as the potential anti-dumping duties (“ADDs”) for goods without normal value are as high as 166.9% for OCTG and 91% for seamless casing!

Lawyer-client relationships enjoy what is commonly referred to as solicitor-client privilege – or lawyer-client privilege. Regrettably (and surprisingly to some), accountants do not have this protection!

As the recent Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) decision in Zeifmans LLP has confirmed, where pushed for client information by the CRA, accounting firms – but not law firms – are required to disclose client information, including work done in tax situations!