excise tax act Archives - Ira SmithTrustee & Receiver Inc.

The Ira Smith Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

Stay healthy, well balanced and safe and secure everyone.

Introduction

On July 4, 2018, my Brandon’s Blog MORTGAGE LENDING CRITERIA SELF EMPLOYED: BIGGEST MYTH MAY BE RIGHT, I described the case of Canada v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2018 FC 538 (CanLII) which was heard in Federal Court. I described where the Federal Court ruled in favour of the claim of Canada Revenue Agency for individuals running an unincorporated business either as a proprietorship or in partnerships.

The Bank appealed the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. The case was heard on October 8, 2019, in Toronto. The judgment was released at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 29, 2020. I want to remind you about the facts of the case, what was decided and provide my 4 killer ways that mortgage lenders to people who also run an unincorporated business, but you don’t lend to the business, can protect themselves.

The original Canada v. Toronto-Dominion Bank case

The original case was very simple. A man had a landscape design business he ran as a sole proprietor. In 2007 and 2008, prior to becoming a customer of the Bank, he collected GST that he did not pay over totalling $67,854.

In 2010, the Bank advanced both a mortgage loan and a home equity line of credit (HELOC) loan to the man. Security for both loans was registered against the man’s home. It was the Bank’s standard from mortgage and HELOC security documents. At the time, the Bank had no knowledge of the man’s Canada Revenue Agency for individuals’ liability for unremitted GST. There was no registration by the government against the man’s home for this outstanding tax amount either.

In late 2011, the man sold the home. His real estate lawyer issued two trust cheques to the Bank from the house sale. One paid off the mortgage and the other cheque paid off the HELOC. In return, the Bank discharged its mortgage and HELOC security charges and the house sale was completed.

In 2013 and 2015, the Canada Revenue Agency made deemed trust claims against the Bank under Section 222 of the Excise Tax Act (ETA) for the amount of the man’s collected and unremitted GST. GST or HST under the ETA and employee source deductions (amounts withheld by employers from salaries and wages paid to employees on account of income tax, the Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance) under the Income Tax Act, that is collected but not remitted, forms a deemed trust claim against the assets of the business.

If the business is not a company, that is unincorporated, then there is no difference between the proprietor’s or partner’s personal assets and business assets. They are just assets of the person.

Canada Revenue Agency argued that the Bank was in possession of funds from the sale of the man’s property. The Crown also submitted that when the man sold his home, he was obliged to pay his GST obligation out of the sale proceeds. He did not do that. Rather, he used part of the money from the sale to pay the Bank off. Keep in mind the Bank was a secured creditor. The Crown further argued that under this scenario, the Bank had a statutory responsibility to pay the GST tax debt out of the money it received.

The Bank argued on its behalf that the repayment of the money only applied if there was an event that triggered other events leading to the repayment, such as a secured creditor enforcing its security.

The Federal Court disagreed and ruled in favour of the taxman.

The Canada Revenue Agency for individuals claim to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal

The Bank appealed the lower Court’s decision. The Bank’s appeal rested on three issues where they claimed that the Federal Court judge erred:

By finding that the deemed trust does not need an event that creates the crystallization around the assets.
In finding that secured creditors cannot avail themselves of the bona fide purchaser for value defence.
Ignored the fact that the Bank’s loans to the man had nothing to do with his business.

The Federal Court of Appeal judges went through a detailed analysis of cases and legislation. In the end, the Federal Court of Appeal did not find that the lower court judge erred in any way and dismissed the Bank’s appeal on all three grounds.

Triggering event – The Bank argued that the concept of priority can only be determined when there is an event that triggers competing claims to the priority over the assets. Since the right to a priority is essentially remedial in nature, it develops upon the enforcement action initiated by one or more creditors. When there is a competition between claimants, and it is obvious there will be a shortfall, that is when the Crown is able to assert its priority. Here, the Bank was not a secured lender at the time the Crown asserted its priority.

The appeal court decided that the lower court was correct. The relevant section of the Excise Tax Act creates a trust when there is unremitted GST or HST where the property is beneficially owned by Her Majesty in spite of any security interest in the property or in the sales proceeds thereof.

So the Bank was unsuccessful in this part of its argument.

Bona fide purchaser for value defence – This argument by the Bank is that it is a bona fide buyer for value of the cash paid to it by the debtor. Because the considered trust fund provisions of the Act do not extend to such buyers for the value the Bank submits that it is entitled to keep the funds provided in payment of the borrower’s HELOC and mortgage.

The appeal court ruled against this argument on the basis that if the bona fide purchaser for value defence was available to secured creditors who got paid off, it would render the deemed trust provision useless in probably every situation. The Court stated this was not Parliament’s intention.

The loans to the man had nothing to do with his business – This argument is that the court should distinguish between the taxpayer acting in his capacity as a business distinct from the tax debtor acting in a personal capacity. Further, it was argued that the Bank had no knowledge of the man’s business affairs.

The Court rejected this argument for two reasons. First, the statute that establishes the deemed trust states “…every person…”. It does not differentiate between different types of persons. Second, there was nothing in the evidence before the lower court that indicated what knowledge the Bank had about the man’s business.

4 killer ways to full loan recovery

So how can someone who lends money by way of a property mortgage on a personal residence of a self-employed person who runs an unincorporated business protect themselves? Here are our 4 killer ways:

The mortgagee needs to ask the question on the mortgage application to determine if the person is self-employed.
The proposed mortgagee must get a true copy of a statement from CRA showing that there are no amounts owing by the person on account of either unremitted HST/GST or source deductions as the employer of others. This condition should be in the term sheet for the loan being offered. The statement should be given before the lender advances the funds.
Lenders should add language to their term sheet, loan and security documents and discharge or other documents issued when the loan is repaid. The new language would be an attestation by the borrower that there are no amounts owing to any government authority that would be regarded to be a deemed trust claim.
Even more, the language would have to make it clear that in the event there were any kind of such claims, even if the mortgage loan was totally repaid, the borrower is still responsible to pay that additional amount to the lender. The lender would then pass on the deemed trust amount to Canada Revenue Agency for individuals.

Summary

I hope you found this CRA deemed trust claim case review helpful. It should be of particular interest to contractors, developers and builders in Ontario.

The Ira Smith Team family hopes that you and your family members are remaining secure, healthy and well-balanced. Our hearts go out to every person that has been affected either via misfortune or inconvenience.

We all must help each other to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Social distancing and self-quarantining are sacrifices that are not optional. Families are literally separated from each other. We look forward to the time when life can return to something near to typical and we can all be together once again.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. has constantly used clean, safe and secure ways in our professional firm and we continue to do so.

Revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing entrepreneurs and their companies and businesses. This is especially true these days.

If anyone needs our assistance, or you just need some answers for questions that are bothering you, feel confident that Ira or Brandon can still assist you. Telephone consultations and/or virtual conferences are readily available for anyone feeling the need to discuss their personal or company situation.

The Ira Smith Team is fully functional and Ira, together with Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone or video meeting no-cost strategy session.

Continue to be healthy, well balanced and protected everybody.

Introduction

I have previously written about joint bank accounts and joint credit cards. I recently read a decision of the Tax Court of Canada that will be of interest to every entrepreneur whose company may be behind in their HST remittance and who has a joint bank account with their spouse.

Joint bank account considerations

Opening a joint bank account is a relatively easy procedure. People who share a joint savings or chequing account can each make deposits and withdrawals from the account without the signature of the person they share the account with. As a matter of fact, any person listed on the joint account can close it using proper identification. Data held by a bank on the owners of the joint account, similar to any other account, consists of personal identifiers of the holders of the account, which enables anyone legally authorized to get that information.

I have written before on the dangers of a joint bank account. The dangers have nothing to do with the bank per se. They are more non-bank related. Examples of problems include:

Sometimes moms and dads will share an account with a small child. The reason is to begin providing the youngster with financial literacy education. However, if you share a bank account with your minor child and your spouse, you are taking a chance that your partner can access that joint bank account that you share with your child without your authorization.
There is a threat with a joint account between partners when you have a saver as well as a spender who each has access to the account without the other’s signature. It can trigger family, relationships or business problems.

I wanted to give this brief background information, but it is not what is of most interest to entrepreneurs. The following Tax Court of Canada decision which I will now describe is.

Tammy White and Her Majesty The Queen facts

This judgement was rendered on February 4, 2020, in the Tax Court of Canada in Vancouver, BC. Ms. White appealed an assessment by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) against her under subsection 160(1) of the Income Tax Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.)) (Income Tax Act) and subsection 325(1) of the Excise Tax Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. E-15) (Excise Tax Act). You will recall that last week, I spoke about the danger of receiving transfers of property from someone who owes money to CRA in my blog, DO YOU INHERIT DEBT IN CANADA: CRA SAYS YES TO PROPERTY TRANSFERS. That blog dealt with debt in death and the deceased Estate. This week, nobody died. You are probably wondering what this has to do with entrepreneurs and joint bank accounts. I will now tie it all together. I promise!

The appeal deals with the concern of whether the deposit of funds by a person into a joint account held with the entrepreneur’s partner comprises a transfer of property under subsection 160(1) of the Income Tax Act and subsection 325(1) of the Excise Tax Act.

The facts of the case are as follows:

On March 1, 2016, Mrs. White was assessed $49,962.45 under section 160 of the Income Tax Act and $90,886.35 under section 325 of the Excise Tax Act. She appealed both assessments to the Court. The assessments are a result of amounts that her husband, former business owner Andy White, apparently moved to his wife between March 15, 2013, and October 30, 2015.
On March 26, 2014, Andy filed a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (BIA).
Department of Justice counsel on behalf of CRA at the hearing backed off part of the claim by agreeing that any kind of purported transfers made after the date of the consumer proposal is beyond the range of the assessments in concern in this appeal.
Tammy and Andy were married in 1984 and always held the same joint bank account.
For the last 35 years, Andy and Tammy have made use of the joint bank account to pay their personal expenditures and the costs of running their family household.
Andy was a part-owner of White & Davidson Logging Limited, a company he started working for from a very young age.
The company began to experience financial troubles in 2004 as a result of weak demand in the British Columbia forestry industry and also a government-mandated decrease in cutting rights. These troubles resulted in the business selling its assets in 2006 and discontinuing business. At the time the business stopped operating, it had not remitted all amounts it had held back as payroll source deductions. It also did not make the required payment of the amounts it owed as HST tax obligations. Accordingly, it was not current in its tax obligations and did not make its final payroll or HST remittance.
Andy was a Director of the defunct company and therefore was assessed by CRA personally for the company’s unremitted payroll source deductions and unpaid HST.
After a while, and after being assessed by CRA, Andy eventually found full-time employment and deposited his pay into the joint bank account he shared with Tammy.
Andy owed CRA almost $91,000 for the company’s unremitted HST.
Tammy was also employed in a retail store. In the late 1990s, she opened up a bank account only in her name. Her pay was deposited into that new account.
Tammy was the sole owner of the family’s home. She admitted under oath that she made payments out of the joint account to pay the mortgage, utilities, property taxes and any other costs of running the home.
Certain amounts were also transferred from the joint account into Tammy’s personal account.

The issues

The issues are fairly narrow. In last week’s blog, I went through the criteria a court must look at to determine if there was a transfer of property at a time when the transferor owed an amount to CRA. You can refresh yourself on the criteria by clicking here.

CRA’s position was that a transfer of property from Andy to Tammy took place the moment his pay was deposited into the joint bank account. They also stated that Tammy gave no consideration for this.

Tammy’s position was that no transfer could have taken place by merely depositing the funds into the joint bank account. Andy maintained full control of the money. CRA, or the Sheriff, acting on a valid judgement, could garnishee Andy’s share of the funds in the joint bank account.

At the time in question, Andy’s pay that was deposited into the joint bank account totalled $89,806.72.

The Court’s decision

The court did not agree with CRA. The Judge found that:

Just depositing the funds in a joint account does not comprise a transfer. Mr. White did not unload himself of the funds when they were deposited into the joint account. He continued to have complete access to the funds in the account. As a matter of fact, the evidence was that Andy, as he had done since 1984, used some of the funds to pay his personal expenses and specific costs of his household.
Andy did not defeat or whatsoever prevent the Minister of Revenue from collecting any tax he owed by placing his compensation in the joint account. CRA could have taken collection activity relative to funds in the joint account. In fact, part of the evidence before the court was that the joint bank account was garnished by a third party to repay one of Andy’s debts.
As soon as the funds were put in the joint bank account, Tammy had the ability to impact a transfer. Nonetheless, such transfer did not happen until the funds were removed from the joint account and placed into the account only in Tammy’s name.
The Judge was very critical of CRA. They did not properly identify funds taken out of the joint account and put into Tammy’s account. There was limited evidence before the court. So, the Judge had to “guesstimate” as best as possible from the scant evidence how much was transferred from the time Tammy opened up her sole account and the date of Andy filing a consumer proposal.
The Judge determined that the amount of property Andy transferred to Tammy during the relevant period for no consideration was the amount of $34,052.
Accordingly, the Judge allowed the appeal and vacated the assessment. He referred it back to the Minister of Revenue to reconsider a reassessment of Tammy in the amount of $34,052.

HST remittance and the entrepreneur

So what does this mean for the entrepreneur? It tells me that if you are:

Director of an insolvent company that owes unremitted source deductions or unpaid HST;
the company goes either into receivership or bankruptcy or otherwise has to shutdown;
you are assessed personally by CRA because you were the Director; and
you get another job and deposit your pay into a joint bank account you hold with a spouse or child.

Your spouse or child will not be liable under the property transfer laws of the Income Tax Act and/or the Excise Tax Act by the mere depositing of your money into the joint bank account. What it also tells me is, if you are in this situation and do not have a joint bank account, maybe you should! If so, go back to the “Joint bank account considerations” section of this blog to see if it is the right thing for you to do in your situation.

Summary

I hope you enjoyed this blog on HST remittance and joint bank accounts. The Ira Smith Team is available to help you at any time. We offer sound advice and a solid plan for Starting Over Starting Now so that you’ll be well on your way to a debt-free life in no time.

Do you or your company have too much debt? If yes, then you need immediate help. The Ira Smith Team comprehends just how to do a debt restructuring. Much more notably, we know the demands of the business owner or the person who has too much debt. Due to the fact that you are managing these stressful financial problems, you are anxious.

It is not your fault you cannot fix this issue on your own. You have just been shown the old ways. The old ways do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team makes use of new contemporary ways to get you out of your debt troubles while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you debt relief now.

At Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc., we take a look at your whole condition and layout a strategy that is as unique as you are. We take the load off of your shoulders as a part of the debt negotiation approach we will create just for you.

We understand that individuals facing financial troubles require a lifeline. That is why we can establish a restructuring procedure for you as well as end the pain you feel.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation. We will certainly get you or your business back on the road to a well balanced and healthy life and end the pain factors in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.