WHY TRANSFERRING ASSETS CAN MAKE A BAD SITUATION WORSE
When a taxpayer is assessed by the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”), the instinct to “do something” can be overwhelming. One of the most common reactions is to start moving assets to related parties – for example to spouses or children – in the hopes of keeping them out of the CRA’s reach while the tax dispute plays out.
A recent Tax Court of Canada ("TCC") decision shows why this instinct is a bad idea, and is a lesson for anyone trying to sidestep tax problems: what one does after the fact can often make things worse for all involved!
As a tax lawyer assisting clients in defending themselves against the all-powerful CRA (and its equally powerful ally, the Department of Justice – Canada’s largest and best-equipped law firm), I welcome any judicial decisions that help to right that power imbalance.
Justice Patrick Boyle’s recent decision in Frigorific Warehouse is an exceptional attempt at addressing an inherent problem with Canada’s GST/HST system, which lacks proper mechanisms to deal with tax rogues who gain access to the CRA’s registration system to charge, collect and abscond with GST/HST funds from unsuspecting Canadian businesses. The CRA’s traditional position has been to attempt to recover the lost GST/HST from these unsuspecting businesses (by denying them input tax credits – “ITCs”). Justice Boyle’s decision seems to put that ability into serious question!
In a “bad news case” for unsecured creditors, the Federal Court has confirmed that the CRA’s deem trusts over things like unpaid GST/HST and income tax source deductions take precedence to prevent loan repayment to unsecured creditors. This means that related and unrelated persons loaning money to Canadian small businesses on an unsecured basis (which is common - think about the loans being advanced by business partners, parents and spouses) are at risk when those businesses default on their tax obligations.
