Uncategorized

Information received at our office – just forwarding for your information.

At the WSIB, we understand the impact the evolving COVID-19 situation is having on businesses across Ontario. We have announced a financial relief package worth up to $1.9 billion to help support you through this difficult time while protecting coverage for people with work related injuries or illness.

How the financial relief package works

The financial relief package allows businesses to defer premium reporting and payments until August 31, 2020. Businesses who report and pay monthly, quarterly or annually based on their insurable earnings are eligible for this deferral.

No interest will accrue on outstanding premium payments and no penalties will be charged during this six-month deferral period.

Receiving financial relief

All Ontario businesses covered by our workplace insurance are automatically eligible to receive relief. You do not need to apply for deferment of your premium payments or take any further action to receive relief.

You can choose to continue to report and pay on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis. You can also report now and defer payment until later.

We are continuing to work on processes related to the financial relief package and we will update our website with more information as it becomes available. For more details on how we are continuing to support businesses, visit wsib.ca.T

A corporate taxpayer was ordered to provide its minute book and general ledgers covering three years within five days.  The Minister later charged the taxpayer for contempt when it failed to produce the required information.  The Federal Court dismissed the charges as:

a) the Minister had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the taxpayer was in contempt

b) the Minister already had sufficient information to assess the taxpayer for any tax owing

c) the Minister’s argument the information had to be in a particular format had no impact on the taxpayer’s tax liability, and

d) the order did not require taxpayer to produce any new information. 

The taxpayer qualified for the disability tax credit (DTC) retroactively for a number of years.  Some of it was prior to her bankruptcy.  The question was whether this was considered “property” of the bankrupt and/or “income” of the bankrupt at the time of bankruptcy.  It was first determined that only the amount that applied to the year of bankruptcy was to be considered property at the time of bankruptcy.  Amounts received for prior years were not considered property.  They further concluded that income is determined on a cash basis and not an accrual basis.  As the refund was not received until after the bankrupt was discharged, it was not considered income.

A taxpayer filed for extensions to file notices of appeal.  Her excuse was that she had not received her notices of assessment.  Her application was denied as the Tax Court found that in all probability, the CRA did mail them, and she did get them.  She appealed this decision too.  The Federal Court of Appeal determined she could not establish that the Tax Court made a palpable and overriding error in it’s core finding of fact.  She lost again.

The taxpayer appealed the imposition of penalties caused by disallowed business expenses.  The taxpayer argued that the expenses were claimed but he didn’t realize they had been used.  The Tax Court of Canada found that the taxpayer had done nothing to verify the information used in the tax return.  Just signing the return at the end of the year equates to wilful blindness.  The appeal was dismissed.

A corporation went out of business in 2006.  In 2013, the taxpayer, a director, was assessed for unremitted payroll deductions of the corporation.  He appealed.  The Tax Court of Canada threw out the appeal as he had never resigned as a director.  Also, he had never done any due diligence.  That is, he couldn’t prove he had taken steps to learn of the remittances, taken steps to verify they had been paid, or taken steps to satisfy discrepancies.  These are all steps required of a reasonable prudent director to establish a defence of due diligence.  The kicker … he also had to pay court costs to the government.