If you happen to’re going to take your
, as a primary step, you had higher ensure you find yourself in the appropriate court docket or the decide could have no selection however to dismiss your attraction with out even supplying you with an opportunity to argue the deserves of your case.
For instance, final yr I wrote a few
who appealed his TFSA overcontribution tax to the
, which can appear logical sufficient. However the Tax Courtroom dismissed the case because it has no jurisdiction to cancel the tax. As a substitute,
wanted to request aid from the
. If the CRA rejects the request for aid, the choice of the CRA officer can then be appealed to the Federal Courtroom, which can determine whether or not the CRA’s determination was affordable.
The newest instance of a jurisdictional fake pas occurred earlier this month when one other self-represented taxpayer tried to attraction a case involving provincial residency to the Tax Courtroom. Provincial residency instances might develop into much more common sooner or later because the hole between
grows.
Within the present case, the taxpayer reported her tax residence as Nunavut which, for 2025, has a prime federal provincial marginal tax price of 44.50 per cent. The CRA, nonetheless, believed that the taxpayer’s true provincial residence was in Ontario, which presently has a prime marginal tax price of 53.53 per cent. Whereas it’s unlikely that many taxpayers shall be relocating to Nunavut solely for tax functions, the place you reside in Canada can have a cloth affect on the quantity of tax you pay, particularly on condition that eight out of 13 provinces and territories have marginal tax charges above 50 per cent in 2025.
So far as what led the CRA to conclude that the taxpayer was an Ontario resident and never a resident of Nunavut we could by no means know because it was not reported. As a substitute, the decide’s brief, three-page determination targeted solely on the jurisdictional subject, and contained some harsh phrases directed towards the CRA. As he wrote in his opening remark, “I’m publishing these causes as a result of I want to attract consideration to conduct of the Canada Income Company that’s doubtlessly depriving taxpayers of their authorized rights of attraction and losing this Courtroom’s sources.”
The decide went on to elucidate that generally taxpayers report a sure province or territory of residence on their tax return and the CRA decides that it was, actually, a special province or territory. Consequently, the CRA reassesses the taxpayer, and the taxpayer then information a discover of objection with the CRA to dispute their reassessment. If, nonetheless, the CRA sticks to its assessing place, it then points a discover of affirmation, which is the place the issue arises.
Usually, after receiving a discover of affirmation, a taxpayer can then select to additional dispute the CRA’s affirmation by submitting a discover of attraction with the Tax Courtroom of Canada. The discover of affirmation tells taxpayers how to take action.
However, if the dispute entails whether or not the taxpayer was a resident of 1 province or territory or one other, then the following step will depend upon the legal guidelines of the province or territory the place the CRA believes the taxpayer lives. The Tax Courtroom has no jurisdiction to listen to a case referring to provincial tax except the province in query has conferred jurisdiction on the Tax Courtroom to take action.
Within the current case, because the CRA thinks that the taxpayer resided in Ontario as an alternative of Nunavut, then the taxpayer is unable to dispute the CRA’s place interesting to the Tax Courtroom. As a substitute, they need to attraction to the
Ontario Superior Courtroom of Justice
.
However how is the typical self-represented taxpayer alleged to know this? In any case, the notices of affirmation that the CRA points to taxpayers in these circumstances inform the taxpayer to attraction to the Tax Courtroom. Consequently, taxpayers who observe the CRA’s directions find yourself within the unsuitable court docket. In some instances, by the point the Tax Courtroom will get round to listening to the taxpayer’s case, and tells them that they’re, actually, within the unsuitable court docket, it could truly be too late for them to attraction to the proper court docket.
Whereas the legal professionals on the Division of Justice, who act for the CRA in Tax Courtroom, do draw this to taxpayers’ consideration, usually self-represented taxpayers are not sure who to hearken to and easily proceed their appeals within the unsuitable court docket.
The decide famous that the present case is the third time in two years that he has personally seen this drawback, noting that “it’s unfair to mislead taxpayers on this method and doubtlessly deprive them of their rights to attraction. Notices of affirmation ought to comprise correct data.”
The decide did acknowledge that the taxpayer’s discover of affirmation was issued in July 2023, and that it’s potential that the CRA has already modified its practices. To search out out, I reached out to the CRA’s media relations crew.
Whereas the CRA’s spokesperson was unable to touch upon the particular particulars of this court docket case given taxpayer confidentiality issues, she confirmed that “our procedures are clear on the best way to direct taxpayers to the suitable court docket. Whereas we endeavour to offer correct data to these availing themselves of recourse companies, we remorse that this was not the case for this taxpayer. We’ve issued communications to our officers to remind them of the significance of making certain clear and correct data.”
Let’s hope that is the final time we see such a difficulty reported within the unsuitable court docket.
Jamie Golombek,
FCPA, FCA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Property Planning with CIBC Non-public Wealth in Toronto.
Jamie.Golombek@cibc.com
.
If you happen to appreciated this story,
join extra
within the FP Investor publication.
