CRA wins against two more taxpayers over pandemic benefits

Article content material

It’s been greater than 4 years for the reason that authorities launched its first COVID-19 relief program within the type of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), in the end changed by the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB). However the courts proceed to listen to instances introduced by people who’ve been requested to repay advantages they need to have by no means obtained as a result of they merely didn’t qualify.

Article content material

As a reminder, the CERB was provided for any four-week interval between March 15, 2020, and Oct. 3, 2020, if an applicant may exhibit they stopped working “for causes associated to COVID-19” and had revenue of not less than $5,000 from (self-)employment in 2019 or within the 12 months previous their first software.

The CERB was subsequently changed by the CRB, which turned out there for any two-week interval between Sept. 27, 2020, and Oct. 23, 2021, for eligible staff and self-employed staff who suffered a lack of revenue because of the pandemic. The CRB’s eligibility standards had been much like these of the CERB.

A few profit instances that just lately discovered their strategy to court docket caught my eye. The primary, determined in Might, concerned a taxpayer who was in search of judicial evaluation of a Canada Revenue Agency officer’s selections that the taxpayer was ineligible for a number of advantages, together with the CRB, Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit and Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit.

In March 2022, the CRA knowledgeable the taxpayer he was ineligible for all three advantages as a result of he didn’t meet the $5,000 minimal revenue requirement (amongst different situations). In November 2022, he requested a second evaluation of the CRA’s decisions. The CRA had a number of calls with the taxpayer and/or his spouse, earlier than reconfirming, in August 2023, its preliminary resolution to disallow the advantages.

Article content material

Article content material

The taxpayer then sought a judicial evaluation of the CRA officer’s selections in Federal Courtroom. As in all COVID-19-benefit-eligibility instances, the court docket was tasked with figuring out whether or not the CRA’s resolution to disclaim him the advantages was “affordable” and “appropriately justified, clear and intelligible.”

The decide famous that to be eligible for COVID-19 advantages, a taxpayer should have had a complete revenue of not less than $5,000, and the laws expressly states that revenue from self-employment is “internet revenue,” which is outlined as “income from the self-employment much less bills incurred to earn that income.”

The decide went on to elucidate that when the advantages had been first launched, “to allow Canadians to entry these advantages as rapidly as potential,” taxpayers “merely attested that they met the eligibility necessities.” The CRA was then tasked with substantiating all advantages issued and validating such funds the place eligibility was in query.

On this case, and primarily based on the taxpayer’s documentation supplied to the CRA, the company decided the taxpayer had earned gross self-employment income of $12,780 in 2019, however had bills that 12 months totalling $25,120.

Article content material

Because of this, the CRA decided the taxpayer’s internet self-employment revenue was truly a lack of $12,340 (gross revenue much less bills incurred to earn the income). As well as, he had reported unfavourable internet self-employment revenue in his 2019, 2020 and 2021 tax returns.

The taxpayer’s fundamental argument was that he disagreed that eligibility for the advantages was primarily based on internet revenue versus gross revenue. In the end, nevertheless, the CRA officer didn’t have any discretion to depart from making use of the suitable eligibility standards, which was a $5,000 internet revenue take a look at.

The decide dismissed the taxpayer’s case, concluding: “Whereas I’m sympathetic to the (taxpayer’s) circumstances, this court docket has held that it’s (the taxpayer’s) accountability to make sure that they meet the eligibility standards.”

The second case, determined in April, concerned a taxpayer who utilized for and obtained CRB funds for 26 two-week durations from late September 2020 to the tip of October 2021.

The taxpayer mentioned he labored half time in 2019 to rearrange a theatre and competition tour, which was shut down because of COVID-19. As a part of his work association, he mentioned he had obtained developments of greater than $5,000 to his private checking account from a patron. He supplied 4 financial institution statements, however mentioned he didn’t have any invoices.

Article content material

The taxpayer mentioned he was speculated to pay again the advance funds from the tour income and that this was an off-the-cuff, oral association that was not reported in his 2019 tax return. He additionally confirmed he had no different revenue in 2020 or 2021 and conceded on the listening to that he had no different paperwork he may have supplied to show his revenue in 2019.

The taxpayer mentioned the CRA “unreasonably” decided that his reported 2019 “revenue” constituted a mortgage, reasonably than advance funds meant to symbolize the time he spent engaged on the tour. He argued that an advance and mortgage are two various things and that an advance must be thought of revenue, however the truth that it needed to be paid again as a result of the tour didn’t in the end undergo.

The decide determined the quantities obtained had been merely not revenue.

“By any definition, a fee that needs to be returned as a result of the work has not been achieved can’t be thought of as revenue,” she mentioned.

The decide additionally mentioned that no matter whether or not the fee was a mortgage, an advance fee or revenue, the basic difficulty on this case was that the taxpayer supplied no proof, in addition to his financial institution statements, to verify the fee was, in actual fact, work-related. The e-transfers he supplied had been unsupported by any invoices, receipts or documentation.

Article content material

Because of this, the decide decided that the CRA officer correctly thought of all of the taxpayer’s proof and explanations. Primarily based on that evaluation, it was “affordable” for the officer to conclude the proof didn’t sufficiently present that the taxpayer had met the $5,000 revenue requirement. The taxpayer’s software for judicial evaluation was due to this fact dismissed.