Foreign Reporting Penalties: Similarities, Differences, and Interplay

Foreign Reporting Penalties: Similarities, Differences, and Interplay

The CRA is imposing more penalties, including foreign reporting penalties. These penalties might, prima facie, look the same, but there are key differences. The first step in overturning these penalties is understanding these differences.  

We will use subsection 162 and 163 penalties to show two penalties that look the same but are different in an important way.  

In 1995, the Minister of Finance expanded reporting requirements for foreign investments. The Minister amended subsection 162(10) and added subsection 162 (10.1) to impose gross-negligence penalties when taxpayers fail to file information returns. Also, the Minister added, under subsection 163(2.4), to impose gross-negligence penalties when taxpayers file incomplete returns.  

The subsection 163(2.4) penalty derives (obviously) from section 163. When taxpayers challenge these penalties, the law requires the CRA to prove the taxpayer was grossly negligent. The CRA bears the burden of proof in these cases. 

The penalties that derive from section 162 are different.  This provision is unique. It does not require the CRA to prove the taxpayer was grossly negligent in failing to file their T1135 forms. It is an easier penalty for the CRA to uphold. 


In many cases, the CRA will impose penalties that derive from section 162 and 163. For example, imagine Mr. X acquires shares in a non-resident corporation. The value of the shares is $150,000. He holds the shares for ten years. Mr. X earns a little income from the shares. In the early years, Mr. X did not know the ITA required him to file a T1135 under subsection 233.3. When he realizes his error, he starts to file T1135s. Unfortunately, the T1135s Mr. X files in the later years do not list the shares or income.  

The CRA uncovers the non-compliance. It imposes penalties. In particular, the CRA imposes: 

  1. subsection 162(10) and (10.1) penalties related to the taxpayer’s failure to file T1135s; 
  2. subsection 163(2.4) penalties related to the taxpayer’s failure to list the shares on the T1135s; and 
  3. subsection 163(2) penalties related to the taxpayer’s failure to report the income. 

If Mr. X challenges the CRA’s reassessment, the CRA will bear the burden of proof to establish Mr. X was grossly negligent in his failure to list the shares on his T1135. However, Mr. X will bear the burden to show that  – although the forms did not list the shares and income – he was duly diligent when completing the forms. 

The similarities, differences, and interplay between the penalties are important. They open different pathways to attack section 162 penalties and defend against 163 penalties. But they also give rise to different pitfalls. For example, it is easy to get lost in switchtracking in these cases and low-quality due diligence arguments are common.  

As with most things, the devil is in the details



Speak to Peter and James about this article


Susan Farina wearing a dark blue top and dark rimmed circular glasses brightly smiling while sitting at a desk with a pen and paperwork in front of her

What Accountants Say

Peter Aprile is a very hands on and practical tax lawyer who is very focused and diligent. He is a pleasure to work with.

- Susan Farina, Tax Partner, Price Waterhouse Coopers

David Cuddy in a blue button up shirt standing in a park

What Clients Say

I’m a Senior VP with an accounting and finance background. I’ve worked with lawyers and large law firms. I was referred to Counter to fix a tax dispute. It is very rare to encounter lawyers that combine expertise, dedication, and a businesslike approach to litigation. I have no hesitation in recommending Counter.

- David Cuddy, Senior Vice-President, Finance & Business Operations, CFL

Laura Couvrette smiling in a plaid top standing with arms folded

What Accountants Say

Counter Tax Litigators has worked with Fuller Landau to resolve several of our clients’ tax disputes. Counter delivers superior communication.

- Laura Couvrette, CPA, CA, Fuller Landau LLP

Mark Ram standing in a office hallway wearing a white button up with dark blue jacket and dark rimmed glasses

What Clients Say

I spent a good part of my career dealing with attorneys on innumerable matters, and found Peter to be extremely competent, open-minded and exceptionally honest. I would not hesitate to use Peter again, and highly recommend the team at Counter Tax Litigators.

- Mark Ram, Retired CEO

Klaus W. Reif sitting at a desk, dressed in a blue jacket with a silver wrist watch

What Clients Say

Counter’s representation on our behalf was well informed, professional and efficient, which ultimately resulted in a highly satisfactory decision in all aspects.

- Klaus W. Reif, President, Reif Estate Winery

Brian Grott wearing a white button up with a red tie with white dots, softly smiling and leaning against a desk

What Clients Say

I was amazed with the results. They went above and beyond, and I would recommend Counter to any person or business with a significant tax dispute.

- Brian Grott, Northland Screen Corp

How can we help you?


Our law firm and tax lawyers regularly receive
recognition as leaders in tax controversy and litigation.