NET WORTH OR ARBITRARY ASSESSMENTS - PART I
This issue of the Legal Business Report provides current information to the
clients of Alpert Law Firm on net worth assessments under the Income Tax Act
(Canada) and the possible challenges to such assessments. Alpert Law Firm is
experienced in providing legal services to its clients relating to challenges to net
worth or arbitrary assessments.
A.
NET WORTH ASSESSMENTS
Pursuant to the provisions of subsection 152(7) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act"),
the Minister of National Revenue (the "Minister") may make what is known as a Net
Worth Assessment (also known as an arbitrary assessment) as a method of estimating
an individual's annual income where: (i) no tax return has been filed; (ii) the Minister
considers that the tax return which has been filed is inaccurate; or (iii) the taxpayer has
not maintained adequate records of the taxpayer's income.
It is important to note that the Minister is not bound by the information contained
in the return or the information supplied by the taxpayer.
Specifically, the calculation of the net worth assessment consists of two steps: (i)
in the first step there is a comparison of the taxpayer's net worth (i.e. the taxpayer's
assets less liabilities) at the beginning of the taxation year, with the taxpayer's net worth
at the end of the taxation year; (ii) and in the second step the taxpayer's estimated cost
of living expenses for the taxation year are then added to the difference in net worth,
which is so determined from the comparison above. The resulting figure is the net worth
assessment for the taxpayer's income and, according to subsection 152(8) of the Act, is
assumed to be the taxpayer's income unless the taxpayer establishes that there is an
error, defect or omission in the assessment. The taxpayer is bound by the net worth
assessment, unless the taxpayer files a notice of objection within 90 days from the date
of mailing the assessment, as provided in section 165 of the Act.
When calculating the cost of living expenses of the taxpayer the Minister can use
the information provided by the taxpayer and/or information derived from the national
averages provided in Statistics Canada ("StatsCan") expenditure figures.
In general, the Courts have found that the net worth method of assessing is an
unsatisfactory and imprecise method of determining a taxpayer's income and should
only be used as a last resort when all else fails. Although the net worth assessment is
viewed to be an imprecise method, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to rebut the
LEGAL BUSINESS REPORT / JUNE 2012
1
assessment. If the taxpayer is unsuccessful in rebutting all or a part of the assessment,
then the portion of the net worth assessment that was not successfully rebutted will
stand, pursuant to subsection 152(8) of the Act.
In addition, due to the nature of the allegations, penalties are often assessed
against the taxpayer alleging that the taxpayer knowingly, or in circumstances
amounting to gross negligence neglected to report income. Where penalties are
assessed, the burden of proof is on the Minister to justify their imposition.
In addition, it is also possible that the taxpayer could be charged criminally with
income tax evasion pursuant to the provisions of subsection 239(1) of the Act.
1.
Lacroix v. The Queen, 2009 DTC 5029
In this Federal Court of Appeal case, the taxpayer was asked by the Canada
Revenue Agency to prepare balance sheets for each taxation year from 1995 to 2000.
As the taxpayer’s balance sheet reported a significant amount of liquid assets totaling
$500,000 for the 1995 taxation year, the CRA conducted a net worth assessment, which
revealed significant discrepancies between the taxpayer’s reported income and the
value of his actual assets. The Minister then reassessed the taxpayer for unreported
income of around $145,000 for 1997, $231,000 for 1998, $156,000 for 1999 and
$26,000 for 2000, which totalled $558,000 for all four years. The Minister also imposed
gross negligence penalties against the taxpayer pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the
Act.
The taxpayer filed a Notice of Appeal for each of the relevant taxation years by
claiming that the source of the $500,000 on his balance sheet was from a loan made to
him by a creditor, whose son he had rescued from drowning. However, the Minister and
the Tax Court of Canada rejected the taxpayer’s explanation, as all that was presented
to support the taxpayer’s claim were the testimonies of the taxpayer and the creditor,
both of whom lacked credibility. The taxpayer then appealed the Tax Court’s decision to
the Federal Court of Appeal.
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal, and held that the
Minister is not required to show proof of the source of the taxpayer’s unreported income
when the taxpayer appeals the reassessment. The Minister need only set out the
presumptions of fact used in the reassessment before the onus shifts to the taxpayer to
“demolish” the Minister’s assumptions. If the taxpayer is unable to meet the onus of
“demolishing” the Minister’s assumptions, the Minister’s assumptions are then
presumed to be true. It is only when a taxpayer presents credible evidence to support
his appeal that the Minister must go beyond the assumptions of fact and file evidence to
LEGAL BUSINESS REPORT / JUNE 2012
2
prove the existence of the unreported income. In the case at hand, the Minister was
correct to rely on the discrepancy between the taxpayer’s reported income and his
actual assets as a basis for the reassessments. Since the taxpayer was unable to
provide a credible explanation to sufficiently challenge the accuracy of the
assessments, the Minister’s assumption that the taxpayer had underestimated his
taxable income in the years 1997 to 2000 inclusive were presumed to be true.
Although the Minister ordinarily has the advantage of assuming the facts that
form the basis of a taxpayer’s reassessment, the Minister does not enjoy the same
privileges with regard to proving the facts justifying the assessment of a penalty against
the taxpayer. The Court held that although the burden of proof is ordinarily on the
Minister to prove the elements for a gross negligence penalty, the penalty in this case
was justified because the taxpayer failed to provide a credible explanation for the
unreported income. Since there was no viable and reasonable hypothesis that could
have allowed the Tax Court to provide relief from the penalty assessment, the inevitable
conclusion was that the false tax return was filed knowingly, or under circumstances
that amounted to gross negligence.
B.
DEFENCES TO NET WORTH ASSESSMENTS
There are various defences that a taxpayer can employ to successfully challenge
all or a portion of the net worth assessment.
(i)
GIFTS AND INHERITANCES
A net worth assessment can be challenged on the basis that the increase in net
worth is attributed in whole or in part to receipt of gifts or inheritances, which are not
taxable. A taxpayer can receive a gift or inheritance on a tax-free basis pursuant to the
Act.
In the absence of documentation that proves receipt of gifts, the Courts may give
considerable weight to testimony provided by the taxpayer and witnesses who are able
to offer corroboration, such as the donor, friends, relatives, and the donor’s accountant.
In general, the Courts will consider all reasonable explanations for the accumulation of
wealth before giving considerable weight to the explanation of receipt of gifts.
LEGAL BUSINESS REPORT / JUNE 2012
3
1.
Pasnak v. M.N.R., 84 DTC 1677
The Minister reassessed the taxpayer using the net worth assessment on the
basis that the taxpayer had failed to report over $200,000 of income. The taxpayer, who
was a cattle and grain farmer, appealed to the Tax Court of Canada contending that this
increase in income was attributed to gifts he had received, and as such should not be
included in the net worth assessment. The taxpayer argued that he received various
monetary gifts from his father prior to his death and from his mother shortly following his
father's death.
In the absence of documentation that indicated that the source of additional
assets were actually attributed to the receipt of gifts, the accountant of the taxpayer's
father gave evidence that the taxpayer's father had the financial ability to actually give
these gifts to his son. The Court gave considerable weight to the testimony of the
accountant, deeming him to be a credible witness.
The Court also gave weight to the fact that no other explanation was plausible
given that such a large accumulation of wealth could not have come from the taxpayer's
farming activity since his farming operations remained the same as in previous years in
which there was no such additional assets. As such, the Court ordered that the income
as estimated by the net worth assessment be reduced to reflect the gifts. In doing so the
Court underscored that the receipt of gifts by a taxpayer is a possible challenge to net
worth assessments.
2.
Cheng v. The Queen, 97 DTC 286
In this case the taxpayer appealed the Minister's net worth assessment to the
Tax Court of Canada on the basis that the assessment failed to take into account
various gifts the he received from his mother, father and mother-in-law.
The taxpayer owned a sporting goods company. He claimed that although the
gifts were given to the company, it did not constitute business income and should not be
taxed as such.
While no written record was kept of all the monies received, the Court found that
the taxpayer's oral testimony was credible enough to reduce the net worth assessment
to take into account certain gifts from the taxpayer's relatives. Thus, the Court does not
necessarily require documentation to find receipt of gifts as an explanation of the
taxpayer's increase in net worth; oral testimony can be sufficient if it is found to be
credible having regard to all of the facts and circumstances of the case.
LEGAL BUSINESS REPORT / JUNE 2012
4
3.
Cox v. The Queen, 2002 DTC 1515
The taxpayer, who was represented by Alpert Law Firm, was assessed for a total
of seven years. In three of these years, the taxpayer had amassed a substantial fortune
in mutual funds, but had altogether failed to file tax returns. In the remaining four years,
the taxpayer, upon request from the Minister, had filed tax returns that were prepared by
"volunteers" for Revenue Canada.
The Minister employed the net worth assessment method to discern the
taxpayer's income for these seven years and used figures from StatsCan to estimate
the taxpayer's cost of living expenses. The taxpayer appealed to the Tax Court of
Canada challenging the Minister's net worth assessment and the penalties imposed.
The taxpayer raised three main defences: (i) receipt of gifts and inheritances; (ii)
challenging the estimation of cost of living expenses; and (iii) challenging the
assessment of penalties on the basis of his mental condition.
The taxpayer asserted that some of his assets were attributed to the gifts his
girlfriend gave to him over the years in question. He claimed he received approximately
$9,360 to $10,800 a year from his girlfriend. His girlfriend was also a schizophrenic,
who, in addition to receiving a disability pension, received a monthly income of $700 to
$1,200 from her wealthy family.
There was no documentation to support the taxpayer's testimony about
secondary gifts, however the taxpayer's brother corroborated the taxpayer's claim by
testifying that the taxpayer received approximately $10,000 a year from his girlfriend.
The Court accepted the verbal testimony, but opted for the lower amount of $7,000 a
year for each of the seven years. As such, the net worth assessment was reduced by a
total of $49,000 to take into account the monetary gifts the taxpayer received.
The taxpayer also asserted that his increase in net worth was partly a result of
being paid $21,600 for his share of an inheritance resulting from the sale of the family
home. This claim was corroborated by the taxpayer's brother. The Court found this
inheritance payment was a partial explanation for the increase in net worth, and
reduced the net worth assessment accordingly.
4.
Ba Phan v. The Queen, 2011 DTC 1290
In this case, the taxpayer had immigrated to Canada from Vietnam in 1990. He
operated a currency exchange business, as well as a pedicure and manicure business,
both of which he sold by 2003. The Minister conducted a net worth audit and
reassessed the taxpayer for unreported business income of over $260,000 in 2003 and
LEGAL BUSINESS REPORT / JUNE 2012
5
over $110,000 in 2004. The taxpayer was also reassessed for unreported GST that
flowed from the unreported income, and gross negligence penalties were imposed.
The taxpayer appealed to the Tax Court of Canada, claiming that he had
received between $200,000 and $250,000 from his mother when he made trips to
Vietnam or when his mother’s friends visited him in Vancouver. The taxpayer did not
keep accurate records, but the Court held that there was no evidence that the taxpayer
was carrying on any business activity other than the currency business and the nail
salon. As such, the only way the taxpayer could have supported his lifestyle was
through the significant sums of money gifted by his mother.
Despite the absence of documentation and the lack of corroborating testimony
from his mother or his mother’s friends regarding the gifts, the Court partially allowed
the taxpayer’s appeal and ordered that the taxpayer’s income be reduced to reflect the
gifts from his mother in the amount of $125,000. The amount of GST assessed and the
penalties imposed were also reduced accordingly.
5.
Docherty v. The Queen, 2010 DTC 1063
In this Tax Court of Canada case, the taxpayer had reported income of around
$20,000 in 2001 and $21,000 in 2002, but had purchased two properties for a total cost
of nearly $600,000 in 2002. Consequently, the Minister performed a net worth
assessment and reassessed the taxpayer for unreported income of over $22,000 and
$152,000 for the 2001 and 2002 taxation years respectively.
The taxpayer challenged the Minister’s reassessment, contending that she
received the additional funds from friends of her father (“family friends”) and family
members for the purpose of purchasing two properties as homes for her family. To
bolster her claim, the taxpayer’s father testified that the taxpayer inherited $40,000 from
her great-grandfather’s estate, and was also gifted $30,000 by her grandmother, who
had inherited the remainder of the cash from that estate.
The taxpayer’s father also confirmed that each of the family friends gifted
$10,000 to the taxpayer to enable the taxpayer to purchase a home. This was further
supported by a letter written by the family friends, which indicated their intention to
advance a total of $30,000 to the taxpayer. This letter added to the credibility of the
taxpayer’s father as it correctly noted that one of the family friends would be the
indemnitor of the mortgage obtained for one of the properties. Additionally, the
taxpayer’s bank statements showed that cheque deposits totalling $30,000 were made
soon after the letter was written.
LEGAL BUSINESS REPORT / JUNE 2012
6
Despite the fact that the taxpayer (i) kept insufficient records to properly establish
where the funds came from, (ii) did not call the family friends as witnesses in order to
provide verbal testimony on the gifts they made; and (iii) acted in a hostile, rude and
unreasonable manner in her dealings with the auditor of the CRA, the Court allowed the
taxpayer’s appeal. The Court accepted that the taxpayer’s family and family friends had
provided some of the money that made it possible for the taxpayer to purchase the two
above-mentioned properties. As a result, it was held that the amount of unreported
income, as well as the gross penalties that were imposed, should be reduced
accordingly.
6.
Kozar v. The Queen, 2010 DTC 1251
In this Tax Court of Canada case, the taxpayer was employed full time as a
registered nurse and reported income of close to $45,000 in 2001 and over $42,000 in
2002. Following a CRA audit of the taxpayer’s husband’s satellite receiver decoding
business, the CRA expanded their investigations to the taxpayer. Due to (i) unexplained
bank deposits of over $76,000 in 2001 and nearly $11,000 in 2002 into the taxpayer’s
bank accounts, (ii) the cash nature of the taxpayer’s husband’s business, and (iii) the
allegation by the CRA that the taxpayer was not co-operative throughout the audit, the
Minister conducted a net worth assessment and reassessed the taxpayer for unreported
amounts in excess of $220,000 and $135,000 for the 2001 and 2002 taxation years
respectively. The Minister claimed that the taxpayer had received these amounts of
unreported income as an employee of her husband’s business.
The taxpayer appealed the Minister’s reassessment and provided evidence that
(i) she was not an employee of, and received no funds from, her husband’s business;
and (ii) the funds alleged by the CRA to be unreported income were received from nontaxable sources that arose from her wedding. Firstly, the Court found that the fact that
the bank deposits were not made on a periodic payment basis nor in identical amounts
reinforced the taxpayer’s claim that she was not an employee of her husband’s
business. The Court also held that the testimony by the taxpayer and her co-worker
regarding the taxpayer’s computer illiteracy and lack of time to work at her husband’s
business very credible. The taxpayer had general knowledge of her husband’s
business, such as the business hours, names of employees and the person in charge of
the cash payments. However, this evidence, by itself, is not determinative of whether
the taxpayer was employed at her husband’s business.
Furthermore, by finding that over $100,000 was received as gifts from her
wedding, the Court held that the taxpayer had successfully demolished the Minister’s
assumption that the discrepancies in her net worth were solely attributable to her
employment at her husband’s business. The value of gifts received by the taxpayer was
LEGAL BUSINESS REPORT / JUNE 2012
7
supported by credible witnesses and supporting documentation. Given the
overwhelming evidence that strengthened the taxpayer’s claim, and the lack of
reasonable proof to the contrary, the Court allowed the value of wedding gifts,
engagement shower gifts and a honeymoon gift to be removed from the calculation of
the taxpayer’s net worth.
The Court allowed the taxpayer’s appeal based on the following reasons: (i) the
taxpayer led direct evidence as to the source of the unexplained deposits and proved,
beyond a balance of probabilities, that the funds did not originate from employment at
her husband’s business; (ii) the taxpayer’s testimony was credible, without any large
gaps in logic, chronology or substance; (iii) the Minister had very little evidence from
which to proceed to a net worth analysis; and (iv) despite the initial reluctance by the
taxpayer to provide information, the sheer volume of material that was eventually
provided demonstrated that the taxpayer co-operated more fully than the CRA had a
right to expect or demand.
(ii)
PROCEEDS FROM GAMBLING
A net worth assessment can also be successfully challenged on the grounds that
the increase in net worth is attributed to non-taxable casual gambling gains. Note that
net worth assessment will only be reduced on account of non-taxable gambling gains if
such gambling or betting activities can be shown to be casual form of amusement (i.e. a
hobby). If, however, such gambling gains amount to the carrying on of a business
activity by the taxpayer, then the profits are taxable.
To ascertain whether gambling proceeds are the result of a business activity and
are thus taxable, the Court will look at whether the gambling proceeds are the product
of an organized system of winning akin to a business. If, on the other hand, the
taxpayer’s wins are the result of luck then the Court will find that the gambling proceeds
are not taxable, even if it is shown that the taxpayer is a frequent gambler and has won
large sums of money. In the absence of satisfactory documentation, the Court may give
weight to the testimony of the taxpayer and other witnesses who have personal
knowledge of the taxpayer's gambling activities.
1.
DiCosimo v. M.N.R, 51 DTC 372
In this Tax Appeal Board case the taxpayer challenged the net worth assessment
on the basis that it included non-taxable gambling profits. The taxpayer was an owner of
a modest restaurant who showed an increase of approximately $17,000 in his capital
account in his tax return. He attributed this increase to gambling gains. The Minister
LEGAL BUSINESS REPORT / JUNE 2012
8
was not satisfied with the taxpayer's explanation and determined that tax be paid on this
amount. The taxpayer appealed this decision.
The taxpayer did not provide documentation which attested the increase resulted
from gambling profits, but he testified that he had won the $17,000 on two successive
nights playing dice. Four witnesses who observed the taxpayer gambling and winning
on these nights also corroborated his testimony.
While there were a few discrepancies between the testimony of the witnesses,
they corroborated each other and the taxpayer on the main facts. The Court accepted
gambling profits as the explanation of the taxpayer's increase in net worth and reduced
the Minister's net worth assessment accordingly. In doing so, the Court held that where
a taxpayer produced reliable witnesses to prove gambling gains it may be accepted as
an explanation of net worth increase.
2.
Epel v. The Queen, 2003 DTC 1361
The taxpayer, in this recent 2003 Tax Court of Canada case, was audited in
respect to the tax returns that he filed for four consecutive years. The Minister
performed a net worth assessment for these years and increased the amount of income
the taxpayer claimed for these four years and imposed penalties. In addition, the
taxpayer had altogether failed to file tax returns for the following three years. As a result,
the Minister performed an assessment for these years as well.
The taxpayer appealed this assessment, claiming that the increase in assets was
largely attributed to non-taxable income, including gains from casual gambling.
The taxpayer operated a shoe repair business in Canada. He emigrated from
Russia approximately ten years earlier. He had very little formal education, could not
read or write, and had a very basic ability to speak English. As the taxpayer kept no
records of his winnings or losses, he offered testimony that he used gambling as a form
of entertainment because his poor English skills denied him of the pleasure of watching
theatrical productions and films. He testified that he was a frequent casual gambler who
went to casinos to have fun, meet people and drink. He claimed that he won much
more frequently than he lost as a result of luck, and not from an organized system of
winning.
The two witnesses, including the owner of the casino he frequented and the
owner's wife corroborated the taxpayer's testimony. Both of these witnesses claimed
that the taxpayer was a fixture in the casino and in a good week could win upwards of
$4000, but that he was winning as a result of luck.
LEGAL BUSINESS REPORT / JUNE 2012
9
The Court found that although the taxpayer's wins were substantial, the
testimonial evidence suggested that these wins were a result of beginner's luck and
were not akin to a business operation. As such the Court held that the net worth
assessment should be reduced to account for the non-taxable income the taxpayer
derived from casual gambling.
(iii)
COST OF LIVING DEFENCE
The personal expenditures that are factored into the net worth assessment are
estimated on the basis of StatsCan expenditure figures (consumer price index). In
general, the Courts have indicated that the method of using StatsCan figures is
unsatisfactory, as these figures are simply national averages and do not accurately
reflect the precise cost of living for every taxpayer. Thus, the taxpayer has the ability to
disprove the estimate by presenting evidence to the contrary.
The amount the Minister allocates to personal and living expenses will be
reduced if the taxpayer can provide satisfactory evidence that the taxpayer's living
expenses were lower than the Minister's estimate.
1.
Bigayan v. The Queen, 2000 DTC 1619
In this Tax Court of Canada case, the taxpayer was a sole proprietor of a
business which did building maintenance and small appliance repairs. The taxpayer
filed tax returns for three consecutive years in which he declared an extremely low
income. The Minister performed a net worth assessment for these years because he
concluded that the taxpayer and his family could not have lived on the income he
declared. The taxpayer appealed contending that the net worth assessment should be
reduced to take into account the (i) inaccuracy of the Statistics Canada cost of living
estimate; and (ii) litigation settlement funds obtained by the taxpayer.
The Minister used figures from StatsCan to estimate the taxpayer's cost of living
expenses. The taxpayer claimed that these figures were excessively high and did not
accurately reflect his lower living expenses. However, the taxpayer presented little
evidence to rebut the StatsCan figure, only estimates which differed quite substantially
from his original estimates in his earlier tax returns.
The Court indicated that using the StatsCan figures in net worth assessments is
a highly unsatisfactory method which is inherently unreliable. However, since the
taxpayer only provided questionable estimates in his attempt to demolish the StatsCan
LEGAL BUSINESS REPORT / JUNE 2012
10
figures the net worth assessments, the Court did not reduce the Minister's assessment
in respect to the taxpayer's personal expenditures.
2.
Cox v. The Queen, 2002 DTC 1515
In this case, in which the facts were previously set out in this issue of Legal
Business Report, the taxpayer, who was a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, raised
the cost of living defence. The taxpayer, who was represented by Alpert Law Firm,
claimed that the Minister's estimate of his cost of living was too high.
In the absence of documentation that contradicted the cost of living estimate in
the Minister's net worth assessment, the taxpayer produced evidence that his lifestyle
was extremely meagre and did not conform to the average StatsCan norm that the
Minister used. The judge considered the taxpayer's unkempt appearance and
psychiatric problems in deciding that the taxpayer's personal expenses, were
considerably lower than the StatsCan norm used in the assessment.
As a result, the Court lowered the net worth assessment to account for the
taxpayer's reduced cost of living expenses for food, clothing, household operations,
personal care, recreation, reading materials and gifts.
3.
West v. The Queen, 2007 DTC 7
The Minister reassessed the taxpayer using the net worth method for the years
1999 to 2001, for which his reported income was nil, and for 2002, for which no tax
return had been filed. The taxpayer was a young unemployed, under-educated male
who lived during these years with his mother or alternately, with various unidentified
girlfriends. His mother and from time to time, his father, kept him in spending money
and provided him with the necessities of life including food, clothing and personal care
items.
The Tax Court found that the taxpayer's lifestyle was below that of the single
Canadian contemplated by Statistics Canada: he had never been to a dentist, did not
wear glasses, did not drink or smoke, did not contribute to charity, and relied on friends
and his mother for his entertainment needs. Thus, the Tax Court rejected entirely the
amounts attributed to each of the Appellant's taxation years using the net worth method,
holding that the taxpayer's sole source of funding was given to him or provided by other
taxpayers.
LEGAL BUSINESS REPORT / JUNE 2012
11
This issue of the Legal Business Report is designed to provide information of a
general nature only and is not intended to provide professional legal advice. The
information contained in this Legal Business Report should not be acted upon
without the further consultation with professional advisers.
Please contact Howard Alpert directly at (416) 923-0809 if you require assistance
with tax and estate planning matters, tax dispute resolution, tax litigation,
corporate-commercial transactions or estate administration.
No part of this publication may be reproduced by any means without the prior
written permission of Alpert Law Firm.
2012 Alpert Law Firm. All rights reserved.
LEGAL BUSINESS REPORT / JUNE 2012
12