Have Canadians Ever Had the Right to Pay the Lowest Tax Allowed by Law? Part II of II: CRA SOTW
------
As mentioned last week we’re summer rerunning one of our more popular Tax Tales from the Canada Revenue Agency SOTW Library.
------
Last week we asked the question "Have Canadians Ever Had the Right to Pay the Lowest Tax Allowed by Law?" and we tried to answer this with a light discussion of CRA audit tactics and the Court Case of Blair T. Longley and Her Majesty the Queen.
http://groups.google.com/group/can.taxes/browse_thread/thread/4408dfa80cf060e1#
But for some real perspective lets hop into the time machine and go back to the 1960's for a pair of Court Cases - read to the end because this will knock your socks off.
These next two cases (argued before the Tax Appeal Board) make it abundantly clear that our Nation's Tax Authority will adopt any position necessary that is likely to result in the collection of tax dollars.
In Coulter v MNR (1968) TABC369 - the question was the apportionment of value between buildings and land. Buildings are subject to the Capital Cost Allowance (they are depreciable) while land is not depreciable. In this case counsel argued that "the allocation made in municipal assessments SHOULD BE APPLIED to apportioning the purchase
price of property between land and building." This position was accepted.
And I don't think anyone has a problem with that.
In Samuel-Jay Investments Ltd. V MNR (1968) TABC552 - the question was the apportionment of value between buildings and land. Buildings are subject to the Capital Cost Allowance (they are depreciable) while land is not depreciable. In this case counsel argued that "the allocation made in municipal assessments SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED to apportioning the purchase price of property between land and building."
YES, the now CRA took two opposing positions in order to get the most dollars from a taxpayer.
AND HERE IS WHERE IT GETS FUNNY - in a sick sort of way.
- both these cases were argued in 1968
- both these cases were argued in the exact same venue the TABC
- both these cases were argued before RSW Fordham QC
- both these court cases were argued on the exact same day.
- both these court cases were argued in the exact same courtroom.
And to top it all off immediately after the Coulter Case was argued the Samuel-Jay Investments Ltd. Case was argued. THAT"S RIGHT. ** IMMEDIATLEY AFTER ** while the Coulter counsel watched from the gallery.
Amazing isn't it?
So while the Court's say that Canadians have the right to pay the lowest tax allowed by law the CRA under any name does not give this decision any regard. Not today. And not yesterday. And likely not tomorrow either.
Have Canadians Ever Had the Right to Pay the Lowest Tax Allowed by Law?
In word only.
---------------------------------------------
Miss a Tax Tale Miss a lot!
Pop the link below into your browser to view the entire CRA SOTW Library!
http://canada.revenue.agency.angelfire.com
---------------------------------------------
Alan Baggett – Tax Collector’s Bible
------
As mentioned last week we’re summer rerunning one of our more popular Tax Tales from the Canada Revenue Agency SOTW Library.
------
Last week we asked the question "Have Canadians Ever Had the Right to Pay the Lowest Tax Allowed by Law?" and we tried to answer this with a light discussion of CRA audit tactics and the Court Case of Blair T. Longley and Her Majesty the Queen.
http://groups.google.com/group/can.taxes/browse_thread/thread/4408dfa80cf060e1#
But for some real perspective lets hop into the time machine and go back to the 1960's for a pair of Court Cases - read to the end because this will knock your socks off.
These next two cases (argued before the Tax Appeal Board) make it abundantly clear that our Nation's Tax Authority will adopt any position necessary that is likely to result in the collection of tax dollars.
In Coulter v MNR (1968) TABC369 - the question was the apportionment of value between buildings and land. Buildings are subject to the Capital Cost Allowance (they are depreciable) while land is not depreciable. In this case counsel argued that "the allocation made in municipal assessments SHOULD BE APPLIED to apportioning the purchase
price of property between land and building." This position was accepted.
And I don't think anyone has a problem with that.
In Samuel-Jay Investments Ltd. V MNR (1968) TABC552 - the question was the apportionment of value between buildings and land. Buildings are subject to the Capital Cost Allowance (they are depreciable) while land is not depreciable. In this case counsel argued that "the allocation made in municipal assessments SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED to apportioning the purchase price of property between land and building."
YES, the now CRA took two opposing positions in order to get the most dollars from a taxpayer.
AND HERE IS WHERE IT GETS FUNNY - in a sick sort of way.
- both these cases were argued in 1968
- both these cases were argued in the exact same venue the TABC
- both these cases were argued before RSW Fordham QC
- both these court cases were argued on the exact same day.
- both these court cases were argued in the exact same courtroom.
And to top it all off immediately after the Coulter Case was argued the Samuel-Jay Investments Ltd. Case was argued. THAT"S RIGHT. ** IMMEDIATLEY AFTER ** while the Coulter counsel watched from the gallery.
Amazing isn't it?
So while the Court's say that Canadians have the right to pay the lowest tax allowed by law the CRA under any name does not give this decision any regard. Not today. And not yesterday. And likely not tomorrow either.
Have Canadians Ever Had the Right to Pay the Lowest Tax Allowed by Law?
In word only.
---------------------------------------------
Miss a Tax Tale Miss a lot!
Pop the link below into your browser to view the entire CRA SOTW Library!
http://canada.revenue.agency.angelfire.com
---------------------------------------------
Alan Baggett – Tax Collector’s Bible