Bifalgorithm post · Une erreur comptable peut-elle entraîner un impôt supplémentaire? · Case tabs

Tax Court

Tax Court (Une erreur comptable peut-elle entraîner un impôt supplémentaire? · Case tabs) — "In allowing the taxpayer’s appeal, Mogan J.T.C.C. interpreted subs…

Ideas in this flowchart

  • Interpretation and application of subsection 15(1)
  • A benefit may be conferred without the shareholder’s or corporation’s intent or actual knowledge
  • This may apply when the circumstances indicate that the benefit ought to have been known and was not reversed
  • A genuine bookkeeping error may still create an issue under subsection 15(1)
  • The error’s significance may be assessed relative to revenue, expenses, or the shareholder loan account
  • Shareholders should not deliberately approach the limits of subsection 15(1) and then rely on the absence of proven intent or knowledge
  • Judge Mogan properly assessed the facts
  • The $28,490 error was posted as a corporate expense instead of being debited to the shareholder’s loan account
  • The error resulted from the taxpayer’s ignorance and innocence
  • Judge Mogan’s findings were reasonably supported by the evidence
  • The Court was not persuaded that its intervention was justified
Feed/

Tax Court

No cover

Channel

Une erreur comptable peut-elle entraîner un impôt supplémentaire?

1 page

"In allowing the taxpayer’s appeal, Mogan J.T.C.C. interpreted subsection 15(1) as follows:\n\nI think a benefit may be conferred within the meaning of subsection 15(1) without any intent or actual knowledge on the part of the shareholder or the corporation if the circumstances are such that the shareholder or corporation ought to have known that a benefit was conferred and did nothing to reverse the benefit if it was not intended. I am thinking of relative amounts. If there is a genuine bookkeeping error with respect to a particular amount, and that amount is truly significant relative to a corporation’s revenue or its expenses or a balance in the shareholder loan account, a court may conclude that the error should have been caught by some person among the corporate employees or shareholders or outside auditors. Shareholders should not be encouraged to see how close they can sail to the wind under subsection 15(1) and then plead relief on the basis of no proven intent or knowledge.\n\nWe have not been persuaded that the intervention of this Court is justified.\n\nIn our view, Judge Mogan properly assessed the facts when he concluded that it was through the taxpayer’s “ignorance and innocence in not knowing that an error had been made when the amount of $28,490 was posted” as a corporate expense when it should have been debited to the shareholder’s loan account. There is nothing in Judge Mogan’s findings that is not reasonably supported by the evidence before him."

Flowchart preview
👍
0
0 comments0 shares

Sign in to view and post comments.