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