Rules Out of Proportion to the Crimes Committed : CRA SOTW
The lesson is don't fool with bureaucrats
Don Cayo, Vancouver Sun
Published: Wednesday, October 17, 2007
We hear all the time about suspended sentences -- slaps on the wrist -- for guys who punch out their wives, for kiddie-porn freaks, for drug thugs who deal and steal with near-impunity...
From my colleague David Baines, we learn there's usually even less consequence for financial chicanery. The kinds of sharp practices his column showcases often lead to nothing more than easy-to-skirt fines or trading bans. And if the odd fraudster eventually faces charges, you can bet they'll be watered down.
Then there are the guys I write about. At least they don't get off so lightly. While it's true they don't harm anyone, financially or physically, they do inconvenience bureaucrats. And for this foolhardiness, they must pay.
For Colin Tsang, who copies CDs and DVDs for a living, his sin was sloppy bookkeeping. It led, over a period of 20 months, to his small company failing to remit the sum of -- depending whose figuring you believe -- either $32 or $567.10 to the Canadian Private Copying Collective, a federally mandated agency that collects levies on blank CDs. His penalty -- not technically a fine, although it might as well be -- is $15,197.10.
Then there's Jim McAusland. He paid his company's five-figure tax remittance a full week early, but at a Canada Revenue Agency office, not at a bank, which CRA bureaucrats would prefer. His penalty was light by Tsang's standard -- only $4,612.14.
Now I've heard from Ian Rose-Innes, a North Vancouver engineer, who finds himself in deep doo-doo with the same bureaucracy that ensnared McAusland.
Rose-Innes was going through a rough patch -- work was piling up, he was injured, and his wife was away on holiday in their native South Africa -- so he checked the CRA website to see how much trouble he'd be in if he delayed his income tax filing a few weeks beyond the deadline. Lo and behold, the consequence -- as explained on the website -- was, for him, nothing at all. Any penalty, the site said, would be based on a percentage of the money he owed, and he owed them nothing. In fact, he was in line for a $5,000 rebate.
So, what the heck! He decided to focus on other things and file a little late.
Then, oops, CRA comes up with another little detail their website didn't mention. Rose-Innes was also late filing a one-page form documenting the assets he still has back in South Africa, and the penalty for that is $2,500.
To add absurdity to injury, CRA airily informed him -- after the fact -- that, since he didn't have the information on hand on the filing date, he should have just filled in anything he could and correct it later. In other words, it didn't matter if the information was right or wrong -- only that a piece of paper could be shuffled on a certain date in preparation for being reshuffled later.
To the credit of the former revenue minister, Carol Skelton, her office called the day after I published a column about McAusland to say the policy that nailed him with such an out-of-proportion penalty was under review. (I have no idea where the review stands, or if it's continuing under the new minister, Gordon O'Connor. I asked on Monday, but CRA didn't get back to me.)
And I think Rose-Innes has a powerful appeal under CRA's recently proclaimed Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The agency is similarly silent on my request for information on what, if any, comfort to taxpayers is flowing from this new provision. But I think that, if it means anything at all, Rose-Innes should win. It obligates the agency to provide complete and timely information, and he makes a solid case that CRA didn't do that.
Whether he or McAusland or any other individual eventually wins is, obviously, important to them. But it's not the main point.
The point is that Ottawa has -- in these three instances, and who knows how many more -- rashly empowered bureaucrats to impose brutal penalties for trivial offenses. And the bureaucrats apparently can't be trusted to temper their power with compassion or common sense.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is preparing to make pre-election hay with his tough talk about making the punishment fit the crime when it comes to theft and violence. But what about the other side of the coin -- steps to soften the unwarranted assault on people who've done nothing, or very little, wrong? When is he going to rein in his bullies?
dcayo@png.canwest.com
© The Vancouver Sun 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------
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
The lesson is don't fool with bureaucrats
Don Cayo, Vancouver Sun
Published: Wednesday, October 17, 2007
We hear all the time about suspended sentences -- slaps on the wrist -- for guys who punch out their wives, for kiddie-porn freaks, for drug thugs who deal and steal with near-impunity...
From my colleague David Baines, we learn there's usually even less consequence for financial chicanery. The kinds of sharp practices his column showcases often lead to nothing more than easy-to-skirt fines or trading bans. And if the odd fraudster eventually faces charges, you can bet they'll be watered down.
Then there are the guys I write about. At least they don't get off so lightly. While it's true they don't harm anyone, financially or physically, they do inconvenience bureaucrats. And for this foolhardiness, they must pay.
For Colin Tsang, who copies CDs and DVDs for a living, his sin was sloppy bookkeeping. It led, over a period of 20 months, to his small company failing to remit the sum of -- depending whose figuring you believe -- either $32 or $567.10 to the Canadian Private Copying Collective, a federally mandated agency that collects levies on blank CDs. His penalty -- not technically a fine, although it might as well be -- is $15,197.10.
Then there's Jim McAusland. He paid his company's five-figure tax remittance a full week early, but at a Canada Revenue Agency office, not at a bank, which CRA bureaucrats would prefer. His penalty was light by Tsang's standard -- only $4,612.14.
Now I've heard from Ian Rose-Innes, a North Vancouver engineer, who finds himself in deep doo-doo with the same bureaucracy that ensnared McAusland.
Rose-Innes was going through a rough patch -- work was piling up, he was injured, and his wife was away on holiday in their native South Africa -- so he checked the CRA website to see how much trouble he'd be in if he delayed his income tax filing a few weeks beyond the deadline. Lo and behold, the consequence -- as explained on the website -- was, for him, nothing at all. Any penalty, the site said, would be based on a percentage of the money he owed, and he owed them nothing. In fact, he was in line for a $5,000 rebate.
So, what the heck! He decided to focus on other things and file a little late.
Then, oops, CRA comes up with another little detail their website didn't mention. Rose-Innes was also late filing a one-page form documenting the assets he still has back in South Africa, and the penalty for that is $2,500.
To add absurdity to injury, CRA airily informed him -- after the fact -- that, since he didn't have the information on hand on the filing date, he should have just filled in anything he could and correct it later. In other words, it didn't matter if the information was right or wrong -- only that a piece of paper could be shuffled on a certain date in preparation for being reshuffled later.
To the credit of the former revenue minister, Carol Skelton, her office called the day after I published a column about McAusland to say the policy that nailed him with such an out-of-proportion penalty was under review. (I have no idea where the review stands, or if it's continuing under the new minister, Gordon O'Connor. I asked on Monday, but CRA didn't get back to me.)
And I think Rose-Innes has a powerful appeal under CRA's recently proclaimed Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The agency is similarly silent on my request for information on what, if any, comfort to taxpayers is flowing from this new provision. But I think that, if it means anything at all, Rose-Innes should win. It obligates the agency to provide complete and timely information, and he makes a solid case that CRA didn't do that.
Whether he or McAusland or any other individual eventually wins is, obviously, important to them. But it's not the main point.
The point is that Ottawa has -- in these three instances, and who knows how many more -- rashly empowered bureaucrats to impose brutal penalties for trivial offenses. And the bureaucrats apparently can't be trusted to temper their power with compassion or common sense.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is preparing to make pre-election hay with his tough talk about making the punishment fit the crime when it comes to theft and violence. But what about the other side of the coin -- steps to soften the unwarranted assault on people who've done nothing, or very little, wrong? When is he going to rein in his bullies?
dcayo@png.canwest.com
© The Vancouver Sun 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------
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