Home Personal Finance CRA wins 1, loses 1 as authorities pursues pandemic profit clawbacks

CRA wins 1, loses 1 as authorities pursues pandemic profit clawbacks

CRA wins 1, loses 1 as authorities pursues pandemic profit clawbacks


Jamie Golombek: Two new circumstances present glimpse into kinds of claims being reviewed and, consequently, denied

Article content material

Greater than 1,000 circumstances associated to previous COVID-19 advantages at the moment are winding their means by way of Federal Courtroom as taxpayers wage battle with the Canada Income Company within the hopes of having the ability to cling on to their advantages as the federal government continues to attempt to claw them again from Canadians whom it determines had been ineligible.

Commercial 2

Article content material

Lots of the circumstances heard to this point hinge on eligibility and whether or not the taxpayer can show they certified for the advantages in mild of generally questionable proof.

Article content material

Two new COVID-19 profit circumstances, determined earlier in July, give us a glimpse into the kinds of claims which are being reviewed and, consequently, denied. Every case concerned the Canada Restoration Profit (CRB).

The CRB was launched in late September 2020, on the finish of the Canada Emergency Response Profit (CERB) program, and was designed to supply monetary help to eligible Canadians affected by COVID-19. To be eligible for the CRB for a given two-week interval, a person will need to have earned at the very least $5,000 of (self-)employment revenue in 2019, 2020 or within the 12 months previous to the date of their first CRB software.

Article content material

Commercial 3

Article content material

CRB advantages are mostly chosen for evaluation when it’s unclear that the taxpayer earned at the very least $5,000 of revenue in a previous qualifying interval. Every of the 2 current circumstances concerned taxpayers requested to show they earned sufficient revenue.

The primary case handled a taxpayer who had utilized for the CRB for eight two-week durations, from December 2020 by way of Might 2021. The taxpayer was contacted in August 2021 by a CRA agent who requested for proof that he had earned $5,000 previous to the primary profit interval.

In response, the taxpayer submitted a cheque dated Might 26, 2020, within the quantity of $5,085 that he claimed to have earned as revenue as a part of an actual property transaction. He didn’t present a corresponding financial institution assertion to indicate that these funds had been ever deposited.

Commercial 4

Article content material

The primary-level CRA evaluation officer concluded that the taxpayer didn’t qualify for the CRB since he didn’t earn $5,000 of revenue within the prior interval. The taxpayer then requested a second-level evaluation.

The second-level CRA officer reviewed the taxpayer’s prior returns, together with a financial institution assertion for June 2020 wherein the taxpayer redacted the account quantity, account holder’s title and transaction description previous to submitting it to the CRA. The cheque for $5,085 payable to the taxpayer was additionally submitted, however the department and monetary info numbers had been redacted by the taxpayer.

The CRA rejected the taxpayer’s declare for the CRB as each his 2019 and 2020 web fee revenue, as per his tax paperwork, had been damaging. “It was unclear that the (taxpayer’s) financial institution assertion was for his account because the statements had been closely redacted to the extent of omitting the (taxpayer’s) title and account quantity,” the CRA mentioned.

Commercial 5

Article content material

The taxpayer then went to court docket in search of a judicial evaluation of the CRA’s choice. The choose’s position right here is to find out whether or not the CRA’s choice to disclaim the taxpayer the CRB was “affordable.”

The choose reviewed the CRA pointers — Confirming CERB, CRB, CRSB and CRCB Eligibility — that set out the sort of proof acceptable to exhibit a taxpayer earned at the very least $5,000 in revenue. This proof can embody invoices for providers rendered, documentation for receipt of funds, an inventory of bills to help the online results of earnings and another documentation.

The choose additionally thought-about the cheque that redacted the taxpayer’s account quantity and the closely redacted financial institution assertion that omitted the taxpayer’s title, account quantity and primarily all different info apart from sufficient to indicate a “cellular deposit” was made on June 2, 2020, within the quantity of $5,085.

Commercial 6

Article content material

That proof, mixed along with his “web damaging fee revenue” from his 2019 and 2020 tax paperwork, led the choose to conclude the CRA’s choice to disclaim the CRB was, certainly, affordable.

The second case concerned a taxpayer who utilized for 27 two-week durations of CRB from Sept. 27, 2020, to Oct. 9, 2021. Her prior interval revenue for the aim of assembly the $5,000 revenue take a look at consisted of $4,566.90 in employment revenue, and $550 in money she acquired for “home providers.” This self-employment revenue introduced her complete revenue to only above $5,000.

To help the employment revenue, she had a T4 slip. However it was the opposite $550 that the CRA had hassle believing. In help of this revenue, she supplied a letter from her uncle stating that he paid her $550 for home providers between January 2020 and March 2020, together with a receipt from her that she had acquired that quantity. She additionally supplied her financial institution statements.

Commercial 7

Article content material

The CRA agent, nonetheless, concluded she didn’t meet the $5,000 take a look at since “the ($550) constituted of working for her uncle was a facet job round the home, (which she) can not use … as revenue.”

This time, the choose held that the CRA’s choice was “unreasonable” as a result of there was no foundation for its proposition that the $500 she acquired from her uncle for home providers did “not contribute to (her) revenue for functions of the CRB as a result of it was earned in a ‘facet job.’”

Because of this, the choose ordered the matter be returned to a special CRA agent for reconsideration.

Jamie Golombek, CPA, CA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Property Planning with CIBC Non-public Wealth in Toronto. Jamie.Golombek@cibc.com.


In the event you favored this story, join extra within the FP Investor publication.


Article content material


Postmedia is dedicated to sustaining a energetic however civil discussion board for dialogue and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Feedback might take as much as an hour for moderation earlier than showing on the positioning. We ask you to maintain your feedback related and respectful. We now have enabled electronic mail notifications—you’ll now obtain an electronic mail in the event you obtain a reply to your remark, there’s an replace to a remark thread you comply with or if a person you comply with feedback. Go to our Neighborhood Pointers for extra info and particulars on the right way to alter your electronic mail settings.

Be a part of the Dialog



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here