Jamie Golombek: A latest tax case deemed a spouse responsible for the tax debt of her husband beneath the joint legal responsibility rule
Critiques and proposals are unbiased and merchandise are independently chosen. Postmedia could earn an affiliate fee from purchases made via hyperlinks on this web page.
Article content material
If you happen to owe cash to the Canada Income Company, it’s fairly exhausting 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 possibly can be held personally responsible for paying your partner’s tax money owed. A latest tax case, determined earlier this month, reveals 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 assessment what the regulation says in regards to the tax money owed of others. Below the joint legal responsibility rule, the CRA has the ability to carry a person responsible 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 — usually blood kin, 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 should 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 should 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 acquired 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 acquired 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 court docket, the taxpayer argued that she supplied full consideration for the switch of the property as a result of she had “beforehand lent her husband varied quantities of cash and that the cheques in query had been repayments of these loans.”
The decide 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 possibly even testimony from the husband in court docket.
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 decide acknowledged that “monetary preparations between spouses are usually looser than monetary preparations between third events.” Due to that, he didn’t anticipate there to be in depth documentation, since loans between spouses are “the exception, not the rule.” However, when such loans are made, the decide famous that he “would anticipate to see (them) recorded or documented in some method past a memo line on a cheque.” At a minimal, the decide stated, he would have wished to see proof of cheques with related 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 overseas. Her daughter, appearing because the taxpayer’s agent in court docket, 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. Based mostly on this, the decide agreed to adjourn the listening to of the enchantment and permit the spouse to re-open her proof to be able to name her husband as a witness.
Following delays because of COVID, the Tax Courtroom scheduled the continuation of the case for October 2022. After the Courtroom 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 Courtroom 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 court docket to discover a manner for the listening to to proceed.
Within the intervening years, the taxpayer turned very in poor health, however her presence wasn’t truly required in court docket for the case to proceed. The decide was merely searching 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 decide 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 known as as a witness; or file written closing arguments by February 28, 2025, and the decide would resolve the end result based mostly on these submissions.
Beneficial from Editorial
The taxpayer didn’t reply to any of those choices, nor to a voicemail message from the court docket, at which level the decide was left with no selection however to resolve the case based mostly on the proof introduced so far. The decide 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 decide due to this fact discovered the taxpayer responsible 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 Non-public Wealth in Toronto. Jamie.Golombek@cibc.com.
If you happen to preferred 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
