Thread View: qc.general
1 messages
1 total messages
Started by Alan Baggett
Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:23
A Bizarre Tax Tale that Takes Another Twist :CRA SOTW
Author: Alan Baggett
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:23
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:23
103 lines
6081 bytes
6081 bytes
A Bizarre Tax Tale that Takes Another Twist :CRA SOTW Bizarre tax tale manages to take another twist Don Cayo, Vancouver Sun Published: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 Remember Jim McAusland? He's the hero of the first column I wrote in what has become a painfully long series about taxpayers abused at the hands of Canada Revenue Agency. And he has another bizarre tax tale. You may recall that McAusland is the concrete company owner who remitted $46,000 -- payment in full, and made a week before it fell due -- at the CRA office in Surrey. For his trouble he got a receipt -- and a $4,600 fine. The CRA clerk didn't tell him at the time, but it turns out the bureaucrats prefer him to pay it a bank, not their own office. And, as we all should know, you inconvenience CRA bureaucrats at your peril. To his credit, he didn't pay. He fought back, in large measure through the pages of The Vancouver Sun, where he let me air his private business in public. The story embarrassed CRA and its political masters enough for two things to happen: Just before Christmas, the agency cancelled the fine. And in his February budget, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty rescinded the regulation that ensnared McAusland in the first place. But don't cheer too quickly. McAusland had another tax bill to pay a couple of weeks ago -- not the same kind of remittance that caused the trouble in the first place, but money nevertheless due to CRA. So, although he'd won the right to pay his payroll deduction account at a CRA office instead of at a bank, he didn't try to push his luck. He paid at his bank. At home that evening, the bank called to say -- you guessed it -- that they aren't allowed under government rules to accept his payment. So he'd have to pay this particular bill directly to CRA. As far as I know, no financial penalty is being foisted on McAusland this time, just the inconvenience to having to pay a bill twice. But I tell his story here to underline the capriciousness and stupidity of CRA clowns who put taxpayers through so many pointless hoops. - - - Remember Doug Lewry? He's the 51-year-old Saskatchewan educator who eight years ago "invested" -- i.e. threw away -- $200,000 in RRSP savings in an offshore scam that promised returns of 10 or 20 per cent a month. He not only lost it all, but also faces a fast-growing tax bill, now $149,000, on the tax-sheltered money he withdrew. I asked readers to tell me if they think he and other scam victims deserve a tax break on what is, in effect, money he never saw. What a hard-nosed lot you turn out to me. A big majority, nearly nine to one, say the victims should pay. Several note that what these guys lost wasn't just their own money, it belonged to other taxpayers, too. Because money in an RRSP isn't tax- exempt, it is tax deferred, and the government has a claim on a portion of it when it's withdrawn, regardless of whether the withdrawal is now or several years down the road. Several readers also railed against the notion that they'd have to pay for other people's greed and stupidity. And there were, of course, some musings about the difficult precedents that would be set if this tax debt was forgiven. Only a handful said losing all of his retirement savings was penalty enough. And only one noted that a lot of such debts will never be paid anyway, so there's no sense dragging a family down in an effort to collect. Nobody seized on the point in Lewry's story that grabbed me the most. It's that he was promised careful and prompt consideration when he formally asked three years ago that the debt be forgiven. Yet he has never had a straight answer. I'm with the majority on the broad question -- I don't think these kinds of debts should be forgiven, mainly because of the precedent it would set. But I do think it is beyond the pale for CRA to ratchet up the interest while keeping him on tenterhooks, denying him the conclusive response they promised three years ago. So I think CRA honchos should tell him now, sorry you must pay up. But I think they should also waive the interest that accumulated while they let him dangle. dcayo@png.canwest.com ยฉ The Vancouver Sun 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Miss a Tax Tale Miss a lot! Pop the link below into your browser to view the entire CRA SOTW Library! http://canada.revenue.agency.angelfire.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Baggett โ Tax Collectorโs Bible
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads