Jamie Golombek: A latest tax case deemed a spouse answerable for the tax debt of her husband beneath the joint legal responsibility rule
Opinions and suggestions are unbiased and merchandise are independently chosen. Postmedia could earn an affiliate fee from purchases made by means of hyperlinks on this web page.
Article content material
If you happen to owe cash to the Canada Income Company, it’s fairly arduous to keep away from paying up. The truth is, even when it’s your partner or companion that owes the CRA cash, relying on the circumstances, you may be held personally answerable for paying your partner’s tax money owed. A latest tax case, determined earlier this month, exhibits how the CRA can invoke the “joint legal responsibility rule” in part 160 of the Revenue Tax Act to gather a tax debt.
Commercial 2
Article content material
Article content material
Article content material
Earlier than delving into the main points of this newest case, let’s overview what the regulation says in regards to the tax money owed of others. Beneath the joint legal responsibility rule, the CRA has the facility to carry a person answerable for the tax money owed of somebody with whom they’ve a non-arm’s size relationship in the event that they’ve been concerned in a transaction seen to keep away from tax.
“Non-arm’s size” refers to people who’re associated — sometimes blood family members, a partner or common-law companion — in addition to an organization and its shareholders, and anybody else the CRA believes is factually not at arm’s size with one another.
4 standards should be met for the CRA to efficiently win a joint-liability evaluation: there will need to have been a switch of property; the transferor and the transferee should not have been dealing at arm’s size; there should not have been satisfactory consideration paid by the transferee to the transferor; and the transferor will need to have had an impressive tax legal responsibility on the time of the switch.
Within the latest case, which has been within the courts for almost six years, the taxpayer was assessed beneath part 160 of the Tax Act on the premise that she obtained property valued at $10,650 from her husband at a time when her husband owed greater than that quantity to the CRA. The consequence of part 160 making use of is that the transferee should pay the quantity owing to the CRA as much as the consideration they obtained from the transferor.
High Tales
Article content material
Commercial 3
Article content material
Between April 2012 and June 2013 the taxpayer’s husband made 4 totally different transfers of property to his spouse totaling $10,650. These transfers had been made by cheques from the husband’s private checking account to the taxpayer’s private checking account. Since they had been married, they’re clearly non-arm’s size individuals for the needs of part 160.
The CRA took the place that the taxpayer didn’t present any consideration to her husband for the switch of the property. However in courtroom, the taxpayer argued that she supplied full consideration for the switch of the property as a result of she had “beforehand lent her husband numerous quantities of cash and that the cheques in query had been repayments of these loans.”
The choose remarked that so as to have the ability to justify the taxpayer’s “self-serving assertion” that the transfers had been mortgage repayments and never mere transfers of money, there wanted to be both some type of documentary proof, or perhaps even testimony from the husband in courtroom.
The one documentary proof supplied to assist the taxpayer’s assertion is the truth that the memo traces on the cheques include the phrases “payback” or “mortgage payback.” There have been no promissory notes nor mortgage agreements, and there was no system for recording the excellent stability of those “purported” loans at any given time. The choose acknowledged that “monetary preparations between spouses are usually looser than monetary preparations between third events.” Due to that, he didn’t count on there to be intensive documentation, since loans between spouses are “the exception, not the rule.” However, when such loans are made, the choose famous that he “would count on to see (them) recorded or documented in some method past a memo line on a cheque.” At a minimal, the choose mentioned, he would have needed to see proof of cheques with comparable memo traces going from the taxpayer to her husband when the loans had been first superior.
Commercial 4
Article content material
When the trial first began again in April 2019, the taxpayer didn’t name her husband as a witness as a result of he was in a foreign country. Her daughter, performing because the taxpayer’s agent in courtroom, contacted her father by cellphone and reported that he had documentary proof at dwelling that will present that his money owed had been lower than $10,650. Primarily based on this, the choose agreed to adjourn the listening to of the attraction and permit the spouse to re-open her proof with a view to name her husband as a witness.
Following delays resulting from COVID, the Tax Court docket scheduled the continuation of the case for October 2022. After the Court docket Registry had closed on the final enterprise day earlier than the trial was to be heard, the taxpayer requested an adjournment for medical causes.
Since that adjournment, the Tax Court docket has made quite a few unsuccessful makes an attempt to reschedule the continuation of the trial, however neither the taxpayer nor her daughter made any try to work with the courtroom to discover a manner for the listening to to proceed.
Within the intervening years, the taxpayer grew to become very sick, however her presence wasn’t really required in courtroom for the case to proceed. The choose was merely on the lookout for her husband to testify as to the character or quantity of the tax debt which he had disputed was owing.
Commercial 5
Article content material
Quick ahead to December 2024, after greater than two years of attempting to maneuver the case alongside, when the choose gave the taxpayer three choices: proceed the trial in March 2025, when she might name her husband as a witness; proceed the trial with out him being referred to as as a witness; or file written closing arguments by February 28, 2025, and the choose would determine the end result primarily based on these submissions.
Really helpful from Editorial
The taxpayer didn’t reply to any of those choices, nor to a voicemail message from the courtroom, at which level the choose was left with no alternative however to determine the case primarily based on the proof offered up to now. The choose drew an “opposed inference” from the taxpayer’s failure to provide her husband as a witness, and concluded that she didn’t achieve this as a result of he doesn’t even have the proof to assist her assertion that there was no underlying tax debt. The choose due to this fact discovered the taxpayer answerable for the $10,650 of tax money owed owing by her husband.
Jamie Golombek, FCPA, FCA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Property Planning with CIBC Personal Wealth in Toronto. Jamie.Golombek@cibc.com.
If you happen to favored this story, join extra within the FP Investor publication.
Bookmark our web site and assist our journalism: Don’t miss the enterprise information you have to know — add financialpost.com to your bookmarks and join our newsletters right here.
Article content material
