Court affirms onus of proof on taxpayer

0:30

In McMillian v. Her Majesty the Queen, the Federal Court of Appeal clarified the burden of proof in tax cases. We believed the decision was important and, in August 2012, we posted a blog article about the FCA’s decision. Recently, The Bottom Line (Canada’s Accounting and Finance Professionals newspaper) published an article on McMillian and asked for our reaction. We are flattered by the author’s decision to include our interpretation in the article entitled Court affirms onus of proof on taxpayer.

For additional analysis, see our Insights.

Insights

A CRA reassessment and dispute do not start from a neutral position. They shape the dispute, now and later. This article explains how the record develops and the impact on teh range of outcomes.

Notice of Objection Failed to Define the Dispute | Some objection-stage failures are obvious. Others remain invisible and lead to the same result. (941624 Alberta Ltd. v. HMK)

CRA reassessment and notice of objection. Large corporation regime. How a failure to define the dispute can stop an appeal early or narrow what can be argued later.

Notice of Objection Window | What Carries Forward | What is placed on the objection record here is not neutral

Filing a Notice of Objection places part of the dispute on the record before it is treated as final. That record shapes how the matter is assessed and what can still be changed.

CRA Dispute Record Formation | Decisions Made Before Clarity

Decisions made after a CRA reassessment form the dispute record before they are recognized as final. That record shapes what can be said, changed, and defended later.

CRA Reassessment | What Happens Next - What appears to require action is visible. What will shape the outcome is not.

A CRA reassessment sets out a position. It does not show what will determine the outcome. How it is interpreted, carried forward, and placed on the record defines what can still be changed.

Cross-Border Rental & Withholding Reassessment Control - When the structure holds, and where it can still be moved - C&W Offshore Ltd. v. HMK

A cross-border equipment rental led to a withholding tax reassessment under Part XIII. This case shows how much of the exposure can still be reduced when the structure holds.

Explore more insights >

Related Insights

Court affirms onus of proof on taxpayer

Insights