Concept

Penalty Caution

Deyab v. Canada, 2020 FCA 222 / (4) Should the Assessment of the Gross Negligence Penalties be Confirmed?

"In Lacroix, at paragraph 28, this Court quoted the following passage from the decision of Justice Bowman in Farm Business Consultants Inc. v. Her Majesty the Queen, [1994] 2 C.T.C. 2450, 95 D.T.C. 200:\n\n27 A court must be extremely cautious in sanctioning the imposition of penalties under subsection 163(2). Conduct that warrants reopening a statute-barred year does not automatically justify a penalty and the routine imposition of penalties by the Minister is to be discouraged ... . Moreover, where a penalty is imposed under subsection 163(2) although a civil standard of proof is required, if a taxpayer's conduct is consistent with two viable and reasonable hypotheses, one justifying the penalty and one not, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the taxpayer and the penalty must be deleted ... ."

Related Ideas

  • Penalty TestDeyab v. Canada, 2020 FCA 222 · (3) The Tax Court Judge’s Errors
  • Reassessment RequirementsDeyab v. Canada, 2020 FCA 222 · (2) Gross Negligence Penalties versus Reassessing a Statute-barred Year
  • Distinct RequirementsDeyab v. Canada, 2020 FCA 222 · (1) The Decisions of this Court and the Tax Court in Lacroix
  • Gross NegligenceDeyab v. Canada, 2020 FCA 222 · (2) Gross Negligence Penalties versus Reassessing a Statute-barred Year
  • Burden ProofDeyab v. Canada, 2020 FCA 222 · (2) Gross Negligence Penalties versus Reassessing a Statute-barred Year
  • Deyab ComparisonDeyab v. Canada, 2020 FCA 222 · (1) The Decisions of this Court and the Tax Court in Lacroix
  • Shareholder BenefitsDeyab v. Canada, 2020 FCA 222 · (3) The Tax Court Judge’s Errors
  • Tax CourtDeyab v. Canada, 2020 FCA 222 · C. The Application of Lacroix
Penalty Caution | Deyab v. Canada, 2020 FCA 222 | Bifalgorithm | Bifalgorithm