For those who’re going to take your
, as a primary step, you had higher be certain you find yourself in the precise courtroom or the decide can have no selection however to dismiss your enchantment with out even supplying you with an opportunity to argue the deserves of your case.
For instance, final yr I wrote a couple of
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 an alternative,
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 resolve whether or not the CRA’s resolution was cheap.
The latest instance of a jurisdictional fake pas occurred earlier this month when one other self-represented taxpayer tried to enchantment a case involving provincial residency to the Tax Courtroom. Provincial residency instances might change into much more in style 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, nevertheless, believed that the taxpayer’s true provincial residence was in Ontario, which at present has a prime marginal tax price of 53.53 per cent. Whereas it’s unlikely that many taxpayers might be relocating to Nunavut solely for tax functions, the place you reside in Canada can have a cloth influence on the quantity of tax you pay, particularly provided 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 might by no means know because it was not reported. As an alternative, the decide’s quick, three-page resolution centered solely on the jurisdictional concern, 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 probably depriving taxpayers of their authorized rights of enchantment and losing this Courtroom’s sources.”
The decide went on to clarify that generally taxpayers report a sure province or territory of residence on their tax return and the CRA decides that it was, in reality, a special province or territory. In consequence, the CRA reassesses the taxpayer, and the taxpayer then information a discover of objection with the CRA to dispute their reassessment. If, nevertheless, the CRA sticks to its assessing place, it then points a discover of affirmation, which is the place the issue arises.
Typically, after receiving a discover of affirmation, a taxpayer can then select to additional dispute the CRA’s affirmation by submitting a discover of enchantment with the Tax Courtroom of Canada. The discover of affirmation tells taxpayers how to take action.
However, if the dispute includes 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 an alternative, they need to enchantment to the
Ontario Superior Courtroom of Justice
.
However how is the common self-represented taxpayer imagined to know this? In spite of everything, the notices of affirmation that the CRA points to taxpayers in these circumstances inform the taxpayer to enchantment to the Tax Courtroom. In consequence, taxpayers who observe the CRA’s directions find yourself within the unsuitable courtroom. 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, in reality, within the unsuitable courtroom, it could really be too late for them to enchantment to the right courtroom.
Whereas the attorneys on the Division of Justice, who act for the CRA in Tax Courtroom, do draw this to taxpayers’ consideration, typically self-represented taxpayers are uncertain who to take heed to and easily proceed their appeals within the unsuitable courtroom.
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 probably deprive them of their rights to enchantment. Notices of affirmation ought to comprise correct info.”
The decide did acknowledge that the taxpayer’s discover of affirmation was issued in July 2023, and that it’s doable 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 precise particulars of this courtroom case given taxpayer confidentiality issues, she confirmed that “our procedures are clear on the best way to direct taxpayers to the suitable courtroom. Whereas we endeavour to offer correct info to these availing themselves of recourse providers, we remorse that this was not the case for this taxpayer. Now we have issued communications to our officers to remind them of the significance of making certain clear and correct info.”
Let’s hope that is the final time we see such a difficulty reported within the unsuitable courtroom.
Jamie Golombek,
FCPA, FCA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Property Planning with CIBC Personal Wealth in Toronto.
Jamie.Golombek@cibc.com
.
For those who favored this story,
join extra
within the FP Investor publication.
