Bifalgorithm post · Fuscalite · (2) Gross Negligence Penalties versus Reassessing a Statute-barred Year

Burden Proof

Burden Proof (Fuscalite · (2) Gross Negligence Penalties versus Reassessing a Statute-barred Year) — "Subsection 163(3) of the Act provides that for any penalt…

Ideas in this flowchart

Minister’s burden of proof for a penalty under subsection 163(2)
Subsection 163(3) places the burden of establishing the facts justifying the penalty on the Minister
The Minister may satisfy this burden by introducing evidence
The Minister may cross-examine the taxpayer
The Minister may call the taxpayer as a witness
Rule 146 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) permits these evidentiary methods
The Minister may also call other witnesses
Generally, the taxpayer has the most knowledge of the taxpayer’s affairs
In this case, Mr. Deyab testified and the Minister had an opportunity to cross-examine him

Bifalgorithm

Feed/

Burden Proof

No cover

Channel

Fuscalite

1 page

USR292600b83e2a

Ebook1w

"Subsection 163(3) of the Act provides that for any penalty assessed under subsection 163(2), “the burden of establishing the facts justifying the assessment of the penalty is on the Minister”. With respect to how the Minister could satisfy his or her onus of proof, the Minister could introduce evidence by cross-examining the taxpayer or by calling the taxpayer as a witness (Rule 146 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), SOR/90-688a). The Minister could also call other witnesses, although generally the person with the most knowledge of the taxpayer’s affairs is the taxpayer. In this case, Mr. Deyab testified and the Minister had an opportunity to cross-examine him."

Flowchart preview

👍

0 comments0 shares