Two weeks
ago, the first GLGI test case was decided in court, and the decision has been
cited as a devastating loss for GLGI clients. In the case of Mariano v. Her
Majesty the Queen, Justice F.J. Pizzitelli found that participants did not
‘have the intent to donate’ and thus were participating in the program solely
for personal gain. This means, in this case at least, that any charitable
donations claimed through the GLGI program are null and void, and any monies
granted by a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) tax credit are now required to be
repaid, in full, with interest and penalties.
For any
individuals who have been awaiting this judgement, the ruling is most
unwelcome, and has led many to conclude that all further cases will mirror
Mariano v. Her Majesty the Queen. An Appeal must be filed by November 19th,
but with the Mariano ruling, a favourable outcome is unlikely.
If you
participated in the GLGI program and chose to wait to hear the test case
outcomes, rather than accepting CRA’s now defunct offer, you may be facing a
substantial tax debt, coupled with penalties and interest. With the court’s
approval, CRA will be gunning for you, putting their full weight behind any and
all enforcement action.
What kind
of enforcement action are we talking about? The options range from a frozen
bank account to a wage garnishment to a property lien, all of which are
achieved without a court order and once leveraged can be incredibly difficult
to remove.
This is not
an attempt to scare you, but rather to illustrate the depth to which CRA will
go to regain what is believed to be owed - and with this test case ruling, that
stands to be a considerable sum.
Perhaps you
are considering calling CRA directly to set up a repayment plan. We strongly
caution you if you choose to take this route. The goal of CRA agents is to
retrieve funds owed, as soon as possible, not over a 12 or 24 month term. As a
result, CRA negotiations hinge more on gathering as much information from you,
information that will later be used against you, and hitting you with monthly
repayment terms that are often difficult to meet. CRA wants their money, it
really is as simple as that.
If the most
recent GLGI tax ruling has led to sleepless nights, we sympathize. We know that
this has been a long an arduous process, filled with uncertainty. Our tax
specialists - including former senior CRA agents - can help walk you through
your options and get the matter settled before you lose any more sleep.
Call us
today for a free consultation: 1-888-868-1400.
Taxpayer rights: “to have the law applied consistently”
ReplyDeleteEvery taxpayer donating to MCF/GLGI has been informed about the recent Tax Court case results in favour of the CRA.
What about:
1. Court File No. 2009-604(IT)G
Presented by: Morris & Morris LLP
Appellant: Luzmindo Navato
2. Court File No. 2009-602(IT)G
Presented by: Morris & Morris LLP
Appellant: Elenida Navato
Both cases resulted in a “CONSENT TO JUDGEMENT”, Where the Appellant (Taxpayer) and the Respondent (the CRA) consented to judgement allowing the appeal to stand, with respect to the Appellant's 2006 taxation year, on a without costs basis. (CRA absorbed all legal costs for the trial)
These “CONSENT TO JUDGEMENT" agreements were made in 2009, so it is reasonable to suppose that if the Taxpayer rights: “to have the law applied consistently” were to be upheld, then all charitable donation claims made prior to these trial records, should be allowed to stand.
This case file information was obtained by a search of the Appeals Court case files on the web. where I was able to find and download the above successful appeals.
When bringing the two successful appeals to the attention of the CRA agent dealing with my tax files his response was:
-“Who told you about these appeals? They are not supposed to be public!”-
The files subsequently disappeared from public access.
Is this taxation equality that the CRA practice?