Claiming questionable bills can result in tax courtroom bother

Article content material

What higher time than with year-end approaching to start out gathering your 2021 tax paperwork to get a leap begin on the upcoming tax season, which is especially vital for enterprise homeowners trying to deduct myriad bills on their 2021 tax returns.

Article content material

Two latest tax circumstances, each determined final month, contain questionable enterprise bills that caught the attention of the taxman. The primary concerned an actual property agent who was challenged on numerous money funds she claimed as enterprise bills, whereas the second case handled a monetary adviser who racked up some big-time authorized charges in convincing the Canada Income Company (CRA) to permit his enterprise bills. Let’s take a fast have a look at every case.

The agent

The Toronto actual property agent was reassessed by the CRA for her 2002 and 2003 tax years, through which the company challenged a number of the enterprise bills she deducted in computing her revenue for these years. She objected and went to Tax Courtroom in 2018 and was partially profitable, however the courtroom didn’t settle for all of the bills she claimed. Particularly, the taxpayer claimed she paid three people important quantities of money for serving to her actual property enterprise.

Article content material

The taxpayer appealed the decrease Tax Courtroom’s resolution to the Federal Courtroom of Attraction. In an enchantment, the appellate courtroom is required to deal with the decrease Tax Courtroom’s findings of truth with a “excessive diploma of deference,” interfering provided that the taxpayer can present it made a “palpable and overriding error.” A palpable error is one that’s “apparent and plain to see.”

The taxpayer argued that as a result of the Tax Courtroom discovered her to be a reputable witness, and accepted that she made funds for actual property leads, it ought to have made the “cheap inference” that she made the money funds she claimed to have made to the people she specified.

The appellate courtroom disagreed, refusing to equate credibility with reliability. “Credibility is worried with honesty, whereas reliability issues the accuracy of the testimony, i.e., whether or not the witness precisely remembers and recounts the related occasions,” the three-judge panel defined. “A reputable witness could give unreliable proof.”

Article content material

The Tax Courtroom did, certainly, describe the taxpayer as “total a reputable witness,” but it surely additionally famous she was “struggling to remember” numerous details, and the courtroom did “not settle for all the pieces she mentioned as confirmed.” Particularly, the Tax Courtroom mentioned her information “weren’t superb,” and her testimony relating to the money withdrawals she undertook to pay the people for leads when she deposited a fee cheque was not borne out by her precise financial institution information.

The courtroom mentioned “she was guessing just a few instances,” she had no information of the funds made, the people she mentioned she paid didn’t really report the revenue on their returns, and the quantities she claimed have been “spherical thousand greenback numbers,” which the Tax Courtroom discovered a “little coincidental, not going, and inconsistent.”

Article content material

In the long run, the Tax Courtroom concluded it merely didn’t have adequate proof to just accept these deductions. The Federal Courtroom of Attraction discovered no motive to overturn the choice and dismissed the taxpayer’s enchantment.

The adviser

The second case handled a Mississauga, Ont., monetary adviser who was reassessed by the CRA, which disallowed numerous enterprise bills he claimed for the 2008 and 2009 taxation years within the quantities of $133,170 and $150,510, respectively. The federal tax in dispute totalled $64,135.

The vast majority of the denied bills have been incurred by the taxpayer to buy and use a $105,000, 2008 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 throughout what was known as “monitor days,” presumably for enterprise growth functions.

Article content material

In September 2020, roughly 10 days earlier than the case was set to go to trial, the taxpayer and the CRA in the end agreed to settle the matter, permitting $116,543 of deductible bills for 2008 and $130,821 for 2009. With the substantive matter now settled largely in favour of the taxpayer, how did the case nonetheless wind up in Tax Courtroom a yr later?

Because it seems, the latest case wasn’t in regards to the quantity of the deductible enterprise bills, however somewhat in regards to the prices that needs to be awarded to the taxpayer. For the reason that taxpayer and the CRA couldn’t agree on an quantity, they agreed to show to the Tax Courtroom to set the suitable prices award.

Tariff B of the Tax Courtroom Guidelines (Basic Process) usually prescribes a really low quantity to be awarded as prices, however the Tax Courtroom has “absolute and unfettered discretion” to award (or withhold) prices. This discretion permits the courtroom to set “simply and applicable price awards appropriate to the actual circumstances of particular person circumstances.”

Article content material

In exercising its discretion, the Tax Courtroom considers quite a lot of components, together with: who gained the case, the quantities in situation, the significance of the problems, any supply of settlement made in writing, the quantity of labor, the complexity of the problems, and the conduct of any social gathering that tended to unnecessarily shorten or lengthen the continuing’s length.

The taxpayer was searching for authorized prices of $260,413, an quantity the courtroom famous was “roughly 4 instances the quantity (of tax) at situation.” The tariff prices, nevertheless, have been a lot decrease, set at $4,096, which included solely $625 to organize for the listening to, and $1,500 for the listening to itself.

Article content material

The decide famous it took the taxpayer practically three years to supply the CRA with data it had requested in September 2017, which included detailed breakdowns of the bills the taxpayer incurred, together with copies of “invoices, receipts, financial institution/bank card statements” to help the quantities deducted by the taxpayer on his return.

“(The taxpayer’s) failure to supply such data for practically three years impeded the flexibility of the events to achieve a settlement. A celebration who fails to adjust to an order of the Courtroom shouldn’t be rewarded by enhanced prices,” the decide wrote. “The (taxpayer) is lucky to obtain any prices in any respect.”

The decide mounted the prices award at $4,096, plus one other $10,400 in out-of-pocket disbursements, however disallowed about $6,300 in “after-hours rush service” for last-minute printing charges.

Jamie Golombek, CPA, CA, CFP, CLU, TEP is the managing director, Tax & Property Planning with CIBC Personal Wealth in Toronto. Jamie.Golombek@cibc.com

_____________________________________________________________

Should you like this story, join the FP Investor E-newsletter.