Bifalgorithm post · Fuscalite · (4) Should the Assessment of the Gross Negligence Penalties be Confirmed?

Penalty Caution

Penalty Caution (Fuscalite · (4) Should the Assessment of the Gross Negligence Penalties be Confirmed?) — "In Lacroix, at paragraph 28, this Court quoted the f…

Ideas in this flowchart

  • Penalties under subsection 163(2) must be imposed cautiously
  • In Lacroix, paragraph 28, the Court quoted Justice Bowman's decision in Farm Business Consultants Inc. v. Her Majesty the Queen
  • A court must be extremely cautious when sanctioning a subsection 163(2) penalty
  • Conduct that justifies reopening a statute-barred year does not automatically justify a penalty
  • The routine imposition of penalties by the Minister is discouraged
  • The penalty provision requires only a civil standard of proof
  • If the taxpayer's conduct supports two viable and reasonable hypotheses
  • One hypothesis justifies the penalty
  • The other hypothesis does not justify the penalty
  • The benefit of the doubt must be given to the taxpayer and the penalty must be deleted
Feed/

Penalty Caution

No cover

Channel

Fuscalite

1 page

"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 ... ."

Flowchart preview
👍
0
0 comments0 shares

Sign in to view and post comments.