CRA’s new power to compel testimony under oath moves audit accountability to leadership, shaping dispute outcomes and board evaluation of CFO control.
.jpg?width=120&name=Counter%20Tax%20Litigators%20Logo%20Stacked%20(MidnightBlue%20on%20White).jpg)
In Bozzer v. Her Majesty the Queen (“Bozzer”), Federal Court of Appeal held that the taxpayer relief provisions contained in the Income Tax Act allow the Minister of National Revenue (“Minister”) and Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) to cancel interest accrued in any taxation year ending within ten years before the taxpayer’s application for relief, regardless of when the underlying tax debt arose.
The Minister and the CRA have, in some circumstances, attempted to disregard the common law. We have been waiting for the CRA to announce its response to the Bozzer decision.
Today, the CRA distributed a news release entitled Taxpayer relief deadline is December 31, 2011. This news release confirms that the CRA will follow the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Bozzer. In addition, the CRA announced that it will adopt this change for requests for taxpayer relief made under the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act and the Excise Act.
CRA’s new power to compel testimony under oath moves audit accountability to leadership, shaping dispute outcomes and board evaluation of CFO control.
D’Arcy v. HMK shows how CRA scrutiny moves from mechanical compliance to interpretive testing — and how control depends on judgment and reinforcement.
The Tax Court confirmed that foreign tax interest is not deductible. BMO’s disciplined tax dispute strategy — early framing, agreed facts, and Rule 58 — contained the loss and shaped the trajectory.
CRA challenges are often described procedurally, but the decisive moments are structural shifts: when CRA sets out its likely position, when it formalizes that position, and when independent oversight becomes available. Each inflection point alters probabilities and options.
Tax disputes are often treated as binary. In practice, principled floors and defensible standards enable earlier, credible settlements.
Grenon v. Canada shows how mutual fund trust status can fail when execution doesn’t match form. Courts scrutinize RRSP structures that promise tax benefits without real distribution.
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
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
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
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
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
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