加拿大华人论坛 加拿大生活信息Tricks and Traps in T1 Adjustment Requests

在加拿大

Tricks and Traps in T1 Adjustment RequestsRequesting a T1 adjustment (a change in a filing position taken by an individual on a previous T1 return) is not always as simple as filling out CRA form T1-ADJ (“T1 Adjustment Request”) and sending it in. The possibility of the CRA’s rejection of the request, and the impact of the request on additional adjustments, suggests that the taxpayer should consider precautionary strategies. The date on which the taxpayer receives a notice of assessment in respect of a tax return determines two important dates: (1) date A, the last day for filing a notice of objection (including the legislated period for which an extension of time to object is available), and (2) date B, the last day of the normal reassessment period (defined in subsection 152(3.1)). On or before date A, a taxpayer who wants to make an adjustment to his or her return has a choice between simply filing form T1-ADJ and filing a notice of objection. (After date A, form T1-ADJ is the only choice.) Filing form T1-ADJ saves the taxpayer time, and is therefore a good choice for a straightforward adjustment that the CRA is certain to accept (for example, claiming an additional charitable receipt). No reasons need be given to the CRA to support such a filing. However, the filing of a notice of objection better preserves a taxpayer’s appeal rights: the CRA’s response can be challenged on the basis of correctness rather than just on the narrower ground of whether the CRA has acted unreasonably (pursuant to judicial review in the FC). When a taxpayer files form T1-ADJ, it is prudent to indicate on the form that the submission should not be interpreted as a waiver of (that is, permission for the CRA to extend) the normal reassessment period. This precaution is suggested by the result in Remtilla v. The Queen (2015 TCC 200), in which the court decided that a form that included all the elements of a waiver should be interpreted as such. If this indication is not given on the form and the CRA attempts to apply the Remtilla principle, the taxpayer can point to DouangChanh v. The Queen (2013 TCC 320), in which the court decided that a request made within the normal reassessment period should be treated as a request only to reassess within that period, even if there is a long CRA delay in processing the request. After date B, the CRA considers adjustment requests to be requests for taxpayer relief pursuant to subsection 152(4.2). Thus, the adjustment request should include any factors that would generally be used to support a taxpayer relief request, such as extraordinary circumstances, actions of the CRA, or financial hardship (see Information Circular IC07-1, “Taxpayer Relief Provisions”). It is easy to omit this information, since the form instructions do not mention the difference between filing within—versus filing beyond—the normal reassessment period. If the request is denied on that basis, the taxpayer’s best alternative might be to apply to have a second review of the request completed by another CRA officer; the additional information can be included in the second review request. T1 adjustment requests made after date B should be submitted only after the return is scrutinized to ensure that all possible issues have been considered—not just the one that initially caused the taxpayer to consider an adjustment request. An assessment issued under subsection 152(4.2) is final and cannot be the subject of a notice of objection, so an incomplete request can harm the taxpayer. Paragraph 87 of IC07-1 states that the CRA will not reassess under subsection 152(4.2) to effect a change in the law due to a court decision. However, there may be a way to reframe the situation to avoid the application of this rule. Suppose that, on the basis of this rule, the CRA denies an adjustment request for an additional deduction that a court had provided in the “Jones” decision. Suppose further that the taxpayer was told by the CRA prior to the release of “Jones” that the amount was not deductible. If it is possible to find a “Smith” decision that says the same thing and was decided prior to the CRA’s advice, the taxpayer could apply for relief on the basis of bad CRA advice.

评论
好贴， 赞

评论
sabre 说:好贴， 赞点击展开...谢谢，这些东西非常有用。华人圈道听途说的东西太多了。

评论
加上152（4.2）的内容，方便大家理解(4.2) Notwithstanding subsections (4), (4.1) and (5), for the purpose of determining — at any time after the end of the normal reassessment period, of a taxpayer who is an individual (other than a trust) or a graduated rate estate, in respect of a taxation year — the amount of any refund to which the taxpayer is entitled at that time for the year, or a reduction of an amount payable under this Part by the taxpayer for the year, the Minister may, if the taxpayer makes an application for that determination on or before the day that is 10 calendar years after the end of that taxation year,(a) reassess tax, interest or penalties payable under this Part by the taxpayer in respect of that year; and(b) redetermine the amount, if any, deemed by subsection 120(2) or (2.2), 122.5(3), 122.51(2), 122.7(2) or (3), 122.8(2) or (3), 122.9(2), 127.1(1), 127.41(3) or 210.2(3) or (4) to be paid on account of the taxpayer’s tax payable under this Part for the year or deemed by subsection 122.61(1) to be an overpayment on account of the taxpayer’s liability under this Part for the year.

评论
Verification of GST / HST Numbers a Must for Material TransactionsIn a recent article in Tax for the Owner-Manager published by the CTF, Robert G. Kreklewetz and Jenny Siu of Millar Kreklewetz LLP, Toronto review the recent Comtronic Computer Inc. (2010TCC55) decision and conclude that purchasers seeking to claim ITCs are at risk! As the authors note, "the practical implication of the Comtronic decision is that purchasers need to establish formal risk management practices for GST/HST administration. This may involve setting up procedures to verify the GST/HST registration numbers provided by their new and continuing suppliers (particularly when the GST/HST invoiced is material). These procedures would include checking suppliers' invoices to ensure that they comply with the legislative requirements for ITC claims; requesting a correct invoice from the supplier when an incorrect one is provided; monitoring future invoices received from that particular supplier; and providing appropriate training to staff members responsible for processing invoices and GST returns."As we have noted in previous editions of ETB, purchasers can verify their suppliers' GST/HST registration numbers by using the CRA's online GST/HST Registry. As this article warns, "y failing to use the online systems to verify their suppliers' GST/HST and QST registration numbers or failing to take any steps to investigate any suspicious suppliers, purchasers may become victims of identity theft and supplier wrongdoing. Not only will their ITC claims be denied, but it also appears that their ability to raise a due diligence defence to section 280 penalties will be limited."这样的例子接触过不少。一方只申请了business number，然后就自己加上RT0001开始收GST了，对方也一直付，根本不去查。

  ·中文新闻 “大吃一惊”：为 Bianca Jones 和 Holly Bowles 的家人筹款一夜超过
·中文新闻 墨尔本大雾笼罩，导致路况危险，塔拉马林机场航班取消