We are a super-boutique Canadian tax and trade law firm, with litigation and planning expertise in tax, trade, GST/HST and customs matters. Our client base is comprised of national and international leaders in almost every industry sector who have come to rely on us for the specific and cost-effective litigation services and advice that we can provide.
When matters cannot be resolved with the governmental authorities to our clients’ satisfaction, we represent them in tax and trade litigation before all relevant courts, and at all levels of court, including before the Tax Court of Canada, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada.
Our tax practice includes a focus on Canada’s GST/HST system, which is a multi-level, value-added taxing system, imposed under Canada's Excise Tax Act (the ETA), and administered by the Canada Revenue Agency (the CRA). The GST applies at a 5% rate federally, and the HST applies an additional provincial component by province, resulting in GST/HST rates ranging from 5% to 15% nationally.
Our Customs and Trade practice focuses on all Canadian issues affecting the movement of goods to and from Canada, including tariff classification, origin, valuation, marking, seizures and ascertained forfeitures, and export controls. Our trade practice also includes assisting clients on NAFTA, and Anti-Dumping & Countervail (SIMA) matters, and much much more.
Our firm has a special focus on direct selling companies. Our firm is truly a “one stop shop” for direct sellers looking to expand into the Canadian marketplace. From tax structuring assistance to help with incorporation, to compliance with Canada’s anti-pyramid laws and provincial consumer protection licensing, we have assisted hundreds of direct selling companies in the Canadian marketplace with their legal compliance, including four of the last six DSA Rising Star Award winners!
We are a super-boutique Canadian tax and trade law firm, with litigation and planning expertise in tax, trade, GST/HST and customs matters. Our client base is comprised of national and international leaders in almost every industry sector who have come to rely on us for the specific and cost-effective litigation services and advice that we can provide.
The TCC concluded in Rojas (2016 TCC 177) that the taxpayer’s mortgage-related services were exempt from HST as financial services under ETA subsection 123(1) and not taxable as administrative services provided to a brokerage firm.
The taxpayer was a real estate agent and also assisted clients in obtaining mortgages on the properties they wished to purchase. Because she provided mortgage services, Ontario required her to be licensed as a mortgage broker and also to obtain registration under a mortgage brokerage firm’s umbrella.
For years, the CRA has consistently assessed taxpayers for GST/HST and interest in circumstances where although there was technical non-compliance with the rules, there was no true financial impact to the government. Examples of such situations (e.g. so called “wash transactions”) would include the wrong person collecting and remitting the GST/HST in a closely related group, or GST/HST not being collected in circumstances where the recipient would have been entitled to a full Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) in any event.
The practice of demanding interest for monies that the CRA already had in its possession, albeit received from another person, is viewed as patently unfair by many of the taxpayers so assessed. In the recent GST/HST case Gordon v AGC (2016 FC 643), the Federal Court put into issue the fairness of the CRA’s approach, and found that the CRA must consider waiving interest in these circumstances on a case by case basis.
In light of the inherent risks of serving as director of a corporation, business owner-operators may be tempted to appoint their spouse or family member as the sole director of their corporation, despite the fact that that person may be completely uninvolved with or unknowledgeable about the corporation’s operations. This is primarily done with a view to “creditor-proofing”. However, as the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) decision of Constantin v. The Queen (2013 FCA 233) illustrates, this strategy is far from invincible when it comes to GST/HST remittances.
Input Tax Credits (“ITCs”) are typically not available for “holding companies” that exist solely to hold shares or indebtedness of another company due to the fact that taxpayers are only entitled to ITCs in respect of tax paid on property or services acquired in the course of commercial activities. However, section 186(1) of the Excise Tax Act contains a special rule allowing a company to claim ITCs in respect of expenses “that can reasonably be regarded as having been so acquired for consumption or use in relation to shares of the capital stock, or indebtedness, of another corporation that is at that time related to” the company, in certain instances.
