Deyab Comparison

"[54]\n\nThe reference to the Minister’s burden of proof being “less under subsection 163(2) of the Act than under subsection 152(4)” would appear to be a typographical error. The Minister’s burden of proof in relation to both the assessment of gross negligence penalties and the reassessment of statute-barred years is to establish, on a balance of probabilities, the relevant facts based on the statutory requirements for each provision. The logic of the sentence (i.e. that nothing further need be said to justify the reassessment of statute-barred years) confirms that the Tax Court Judge understood that once the finding was made that the documents were a sham and that the taxpayer, in that case, “deliberately failed to report $516,000 in income”, this finding would also support the reassessment of the statute-barred year on the basis that there was a misrepresentation of his income that was attributable to wilful default.\n\n[55]\n\nIn Lacroix, the finding of the Tax Court was that the documents that purported to support a loan were a sham and that Mr. Lacroix “deliberately failed to report $516,000 in income”. In Mr. Deyab’s case, there was evidence that significant amounts had been transferred to M.D. Consulting and there is no suggestion that any documents were a sham."