Institutional Options for a Coherent Tax-Dispute System

[Executive Summary

Canada’s tax-dispute system lacks a stable way to examine how procedural changes shape the system as a whole. Each institution sees only part of the landscape. As a result, reforms often emerge from narrow vantage points, with limited visibility into how different taxpayer segments experience the dispute process or how changes interact across the Informal and General Procedures.

This note builds on The Architecture Gap in Canada’s Tax-Dispute System by focusing on one practical question: what kind of institutional mechanism could give the system a clearer, cross-stakeholder design view? It outlines the structural blind spots created by today’s distributed mandates, describes where those blind spots produce pressure, and explores several credible forms a coordinated design function could take. The goal is to support informed discussion about realistic, system-level options, not to recommend a specific model.

The Structural Gap

Multiple institutions contribute to the tax-dispute system, e.g.,  the CRA, DOJ, the Tax Court, the private bar, and professional bodies. Each carries a legitimate mandate. However, responsibilities are distributed in a way that leaves no institution accountable for:

• assessing system-wide implications of procedural changes
• integrating the experiences of different taxpayer segments
• maintaining coherence between the Informal and General Procedures
• balancing the incentives that shape system behaviour

This creates a structural gap in system-level visibility. Procedural changes often move through narrow institutional pathways, reflecting the priorities of the advancing institution rather than a shared design lens.

Why Cross-Segment Visibility Matters

Taxpayers experience the dispute process differently. These differences create distinct capacities, constraints, and sensitivities to procedural change.

Key segments include:

• informal-procedure users
• taxpayers near the informal–general boundary
• general-procedure litigants
• mid-market businesses with governance and financial exposure
• institutional stakeholders observing cross-file patterns

The current governance model does not integrate these perspectives. Without a coordinated view, system effects remain siloed, and changes in one area can produce unintended consequences in another.

Pressures in the Current Model

The absence of a coordinating function creates predictable pressures:

• asymmetric visibility into taxpayer experience
• institution-driven reform focused on operational constraints
• limited cross-procedure analysis
• fragmentation when changes advance without shared design principles
• imbalance when efficiency gains accrue to one part of the system without parallel commitments elsewhere

These pressures are structural and reflect the distribution of mandates.

What a Coordinated Design Function Could Offer

A design function would not replace existing institutions. It would supplement them by providing:

• structured assessment of cross-segment effects
• visibility into interactions between Informal and General Procedure
• a neutral basis for evaluating procedural proposals
• insight into system polarities and incentives
• continuity across review cycles

The emphasis is on analysis, coherence, and system-level visibility.

Possible Institutional Options

Several structures could fulfill this role. The specific form matters less than the presence of a stable, neutral mechanism.

• System Design Council: Practitioner-led, focused on system-level impacts.
• Standing Committee on Dispute-System Design: Within an existing professional institution, focused on tax dispute architecture.
• Research-Driven Collaborative: Independent, analysis-only, producing structured insight across procedures.

Each model emphasizes coherence and system-level visibility.

Considerations for Discussion

Questions that may guide further examination include:

• What principles should govern system-level review?
• How should cross-segment perspectives be gathered and synthesized?
• What scope of analysis is most useful?
• How can neutrality be maintained?
• What structure offers the right blend of expertise and credibility?

These questions can support a constructive dialogue among stakeholders.

Conclusion

A coordinated design function could help strengthen coherence and predictability in Canada’s tax-dispute system. This note outlines the structural gap and presents several potential models that may address it. The aim is to support further discussion and contribute to a broader examination of how system-level insight could complement existing institutional roles.

About the Canadian Institute for Tax Controversy Studies

The Canadian Institute for Tax Controversy Studies is the independent research and policy arm of Counter LLP. Its work focuses on system design, governance, and accountability in tax dispute resolution. The Institute produces independent research to surface system patterns, strengthen understanding, and inform principled improvements in Canada’s tax dispute system.