Tax & Trade Blog

---

TCC POWERLESS OVER CRA COLLECTIONS

CRA FREE TO GARNISH UNREMITTED GST/HST - EVEN WITH TCC APPEAL PENDING

Download a PDF copy of this Blog here.

In the recent Tax Court of Canada (“TCC”) decision Harris v. The King, 2026 TCC 89 (“Harris”), a taxpayer assessed for unremitted GST/HST learned the hard way about the Canada Revenue Agency’s (“CRA”) extremely broad Collection Rights.

In this Tax Audits Series we review the Harris decision and the key differences it highlights between the CRA’s ability to collect GST/HST debts and Income Tax debts – and why it demonstrates that retaining Experienced Tax Counsel at the front-end of the audit process can help avoid harsh collections action later on.

---

DIRECTORS’ LIABILITY FOR UNREMITTED GST/HST

RESIGNING AS DIRECTOR TO AVOID CORPORATE INDIRECT TAX LIABILITY A TRICKY TASK

Download a PDF copy of this Blog here.

The GST/HST framework under the Excise Tax Act (“ETA”), as with other indirect tax regimes (like federal and provincial alcohol, tobacco and vaping taxes) includes “directors’ liability” provisions that are triggered when the corporation does not have the money to pay an assessed amount. Most of these systems have “statutory limitation rules” and “due diligence defences” which may limit liability, but these rules are extremely tricky to apply in practice.

We review these in a two-part series here, with reference to the helpful recent case Stevens v. The King, 2026 TCC 76 (“Stevens”), which revolves around this directors’ liability framework.

---

THE DUE DILIGENCE DEFENCE & DIRECTORS’ LIABILITY

PROVING DUE DILIGENCE TO AVOID DIRECTORS’ GST/HST LIABILITY NO EASY FEAT!

Download a PDF copy of this Blog here.

The GST/HST framework under the Excise Tax Act (“ETA”), as with other indirect tax regimes (like federal and provincial alcohol, tobacco and vaping taxes) includes “directors’ liability” provisions that are triggered when the corporation does not have the money to pay an assessed amount. Most of these systems have “due diligence defences” and “statutory limitation rules” which may limit a director’s liability, but these rules are tricky to apply in practice.

We review these rules in a two-part series, with reference to the recent case Stevens v. The King, 2026 TCC 76 (“Stevens”), which revolves around this directors’ liability framework.

---

DIRECTOR'S LIABILITY FOR HOME BUILDERS

 CRA TARGETS CORPORATE DIRECTORS

As we have blogged about here and here, the CRA continues to assess home builders, renovators and others in the residential real estate industry on the basis that their activities may constitute a business subject to GST/HST.

A recent Tax Court of Canada (“TCC”) decision in Ayoub v. the King, 2025 TCC 48 illustrates both the complexity of these rules and the risk that corporate directors can be held personally liable for unremitted GST/HST – even when the corporation is the builder!