<![CDATA[CD LEGAL - Me Caroline Desrosiers - Tax Litigation - Laval - Laurentides - Blog and articles of interest]]>Mon, 13 May 2024 15:05:55 -0700Weebly<![CDATA[The Protecteur du Citoyen claims Revenue Quebec acts in an abusive manner, and the Finance Cabinet confirms it will get Revenue Quebec to behave more properly from now on!]]>Sat, 19 Sep 2015 19:40:07 GMThttp://cdlegal.org/blog-and-articles-of-interest/the-protecteur-du-citoyen-claims-revenue-quebec-acts-in-an-abusive-manner-and-the-finance-cabinet-confirms-it-will-get-revenue-quebec-to-behave-more-properly-from-now-onDespite the recent Quebec Court of Appeal judgement against the Picotte-Marineau family (Système Intérieur GPBR v. l'Agence du Revenu du Quebec), (leave to appeal to the Supreme Court will be filed), it appears that taxpayers are simply winning the battle anyways.

Indeed, the Protecteur du Citoyen continues to support Québec's entrepreneurs by taking a stand against abuses committed by some of Revenue Québec agents. See report here.

"Dans ces dossiers, le Protecteur du citoyen constate le recours à des méthodes de vérification inadéquates, voire abusives, et le refus de Revenu Québec de considérer des éléments venant étayer les explications que fournissent les entreprises."

"Dans certains cas, les vérificateurs ont ignoré ces documents ou ne leur ont accordé aucune valeur probante, et ce, sans raison autre que l’existence supposée d’un stratagème. Le Protecteur du citoyen dénonce vivement ces pratiques qui sont contraires aux principes d’équité procédurale et qui affectent sérieusement la santé financière des entreprises visées."

In addition, following the submission of the report of the Protector, Finance Minister Leitao want to end these unacceptable acts. See article in the newspaper Le Soleil here, the statement of the Minister of Finance here, and excellent radio interview with the Minister Leitao by Radio-Canada First (from the 11th minute.).

Also see the Gazette article about the Protecteur's report here.

]]><![CDATA[Reassessments are artificially increased by approximately 90%, following Richter's analysis...]]>Wed, 28 Jan 2015 16:46:55 GMThttp://cdlegal.org/blog-and-articles-of-interest/reassessments-are-artificially-increased-by-approximately-90-following-richters-analysisA very interesting article drafted by Stephanie Grammond, La Presse:

http://plus.lapresse.ca/screens/483c51b4-85c1-49c6-b3c5-59525a40bbd4|9zM_rfcf6ukD.html]]><![CDATA[Article in DROIT.inc regarding the inscription of CD LEGAL at the Registres des Lobbyistes]]>Fri, 05 Sep 2014 22:19:13 GMThttp://cdlegal.org/blog-and-articles-of-interest/article-in-droitinc-regarding-the-inscription-of-cd-legal-at-the-registres-des-lobbyisteshttp://www.droit-inc.com/article13470-Lobbying-en-vrac]]><![CDATA[Archambault Saga - update]]>Thu, 22 May 2014 16:44:34 GMThttp://cdlegal.org/blog-and-articles-of-interest/archambault-saga-updateCD LEGAL agreed to represent Mr. Jean -Yves Archambault in one of his crusades against the Revenue Quebec . During the  Enico trial, Mr. Archambault finally got the confirmation he was looking for; that there really are quotas imposed to the Revenu Quebec auditors, but these quotas are rather called " objectives ", or "expectations" .

Troubled, Mr. Archambault charged CD LEGAL to try to find a way to shed light on this situation and most importantly, try to change things in the interest of all citizens od Quebec.

It is in this perspective that we produced for Mr. Archambault a motion for declaratory judgment to prohibit quotas and bonuses, because such bonuses create a structural conflict of interest within Revenu Québec.

The Honorable Judge Reimnitz mentioned in the Enico judgement that : [ 652 ] The principle is clear . If you reward an employee for the amounts he recovered, there is an incentive to recover more, and there is a risk that it will distort its judgment while performing its audit work. His interest is obvious.  (our traduction)


Here are links to articles about :
http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2014/05/21/123-000-verifications-de-plus-en-trois-ans

http://plus.lapresse.ca/screens/4a4b-1468-5374e6df-a357-1d3dac1c606a|B.u0rHKcnZ7g

National Post article by Nicolas Van Praet : Quebec tax targets following quotas for Auditors
 ]]><![CDATA[When Revenue Quebec refuses to let go of an honest taxpayer, it is all Quebec's population that is concerned ...]]>Sat, 14 Dec 2013 18:48:38 GMThttp://cdlegal.org/blog-and-articles-of-interest/project-picotte-when-revenue-quebec-refuses-to-let-go Picture
Give generously:
http://haricot.ca/user/projetpicotte

(Donations can be anonymous, at your discretion).

For some years now, the pressure becomes stronger on the government to increase revenue of heavily indebted governments. Although all want taxpayers pay their fair share of taxes , such pressure leads to significant slippage increasingly frequent. The media have raised several cases in recent months, including the unfortunate event of the Picotte family.

The Picotte family

 

Mr. Picotte and his step- son realized there nearly 10 years their dream of starting a small construction company. This dream, however, turned into a nightmare when Revenue Québec informed them that some of their sub-contractors did not report their income and that Mr. Picotte would be held responsible, even though he knew nothing about it and he had done everything possible to verify if these subcontractors were legitimate and legal. They were all duly approved by the Government in the register of companies as well as in GST/QST registries.

Nevertheless, Revenue Québec reassessed Mr. Picotte’s company and his family members for a total amount around $500,000. This had devastating effects on all family members (depression, bankruptcy, the son-in-law lost his house, seizure of corporate, personal and joint accounts, etc... ). The family business, flourishing at the time, had to cease its activities.

The Quebec Court agreed with Mr. Picotte : Having done nothing wrong, and being convinced that an honest person should not be held responsible for the fraud committed by another person , Mr. Picotte decided to fight. Me Caroline Desrosiers, believing in the cause, accepted it without compensation. She led Mr. Picotte to a victory before a judge of the Quebec Court last October after a year and a half of hard work on the case. The judge issued harsh comments towards certain positions of Revenue Québec. The judge also underlined that he believed in the good faith and honesty of Mr. Picotte’s family. The judge noted that Revenue Québec had presented no evidence of collusion between Mr. Picotte and subcontractors who did not report their income.


Appeal:  On November 14th, Revenue Québec appealed the decision to the Quebec Court of Appeal, in despair of the family, who believed to have finally arrived at the end of their troubles.

The Picotte family no longer has anything because of Revenue Québec’s seizures. In the current situation, this family could go bankrupt, despite the fact that they have in hand a judgment confirming their innocence! Such a situation also affects other Quebec SMEs facing similar allegations from Revenue Québec.


An historic fundraiser…

Help generously to allow this cause to be heard in court. It is our fundamental rights as taxpayers to have this opportunity. And be part of this historic movement, where Quebecers will all unite to help a needy taxpayer. Funds donated will be used to prevent Mr. Picotte from going bankrupt before the hearing of the appeal, despite the favorable decision he received, and to pay court costs.

Tax experts uniting, to allow this case to be heard.

In the name of fairness, humanity and accessibility to justice, several major tax specialists have reached out to me offering their help without compensation during the last months. For them and me, it is essential that people like Mr. Picotte, who are honest citizens, can effectively exercise their right to be heard by our justice system.

Confidence in the fairness of our tax system is essential for Quebec SMEs, which are major job creators benefiting all Quebecers.

The Picotte family and I would like to thank the experts that have contributed to this cause by their expertise and support in order that it be heard by the Court of Appeal. A special thank you to:

-          Alexandre Dufresne ( Spiegel Sohmer )

-          Barry Landy ( Spiegel Sohmer )

-          Brigitte Alepin (Agora Fiscalité)

-          Etienne Gadbois ( De Grandpre Chait )

-          Natalie St -Pierre (Richter )

-          Martin Gilbert (Richter )

-          Yves Chartrand ( CQFF )

It is with enthusiasm that we welcome all who want to join and offer their expertise Do not hesitate to contact Me Caroline Desrosiers by email at projetpicotte@cdlegal.ca to join this group.

And most importantly, a big thanks for your assistance to the Picotte family!



]]><![CDATA[Business owners, beware!!! A disturbing judgement just came out...]]>Sat, 17 Aug 2013 15:33:07 GMThttp://cdlegal.org/blog-and-articles-of-interest/business-owners-beware-a-disturbing-judgement-just-came-outOn June 17, the Tax Court of Canada issued a judgment, Entreprises DRF Inc. v. The Queen, 2013 TCC 95, a disturbing decision on several points of view.Imagine being a construction contractor specializing in seals and repairs. You are short of employees for a certain period and recruit a handyman in the newspaper. After finishing the work required, the handyman brings you a bill from a company XYZ. XYZ is validly registered at the business register, and its tax numbers are valid. You issue a cheque to XYZ, and deliver it to the handyman. You then deduct the expense from your business income and claim the input tax credits. Four years later, the tax authorities requires you to pay back all these deductions, claiming that you have participated in a scheme with XYZ to evade payment of taxes.The truth is that XYZ does not report its income. XYZ does not report having any employees, so XYZ does not pay its DAS, and probably pays workers "under the table". You ignore this fraud, and you had no way to have actual knowledge of it considering the numerous regulations about protection of personal information.
It is likely a ploy between the owner of XYZ and the handyman where the owner pays the handyman directly and keeps the balance to avoid the heavy tax and administrative burden. According to l'Association de la construction, "Le système encourage le travail au noir". (http://www.lapresse.ca/debats/chroniques/yves-boisvert/201307/05/01-4667929-letrange-strategie-de-dessau.php).

In light of the discovery of the extent of undeclared work, Revenu Québec has undertaken to recover the sums owed by developing a type of aggressive reassessment to contractors claiming their complacency with their subcontractors who do not declare their income and/or their employees. By these reassessments against contractors, Revenu Québec seeks reimbursement of input tax credits and refunds, the reimbursement of the deduction of invoices issued by fraudulent subcontractors. A shareholder benefit reassessment is also issued alleging misappropriation of the business funds. These outrageous reassessments are issued despite the fact that the contractor who received XYZ's services made all possible verifications about XYZ's compliance and ignores all of the fraud!

The jurisprudence, initially favorable to taxpayers, required a demonstration of the Taxpayer's good faith to reject the Crown's reassessments. If the Contractor, in good faith, was unaware of the fraud of its subcontractor, then Revenu Quebec could not request the reimbursement of the credits and expenses deducted.

Then, the Federal Court specified that the input tx credits and refunds could not be claimed if the tax numbers were not validly assigned to the issuer of the invoice, regardless of the good faith of the contractor. (Judgments Systematix and Comtronic)

Subsequently, several judgments were rendered in cases where the Court held that there was no real services rendered, therefore, there was ACTUALLY presence of a tax evasion strategy, and Taxpayer's appeals have been properly rejected.

Revenu Québec then attempted to use these judgments, and apply the conclusions of those judgements to situations where the existence of services was NOT in question.

The judgment DRF is the expression of those efforts by the Minister. Following the Crown's conclusions, the judge criticized the company DRF, and according to the judge, DRF should have asked more questions to its subcontractors, and should have known that something was wrong with the subcontractors. Basically the Court asks the Taxpayers to refuse to be invoiced by a corporation, if there can be a slight doubt that something might be wrong with its government compliance in general. This judgement is detrimental to business in Quebec and it must now be put back in context, to apply only to files where the existence of the services is questioned.

If not, how can a Taxpayer be assured of the tax compliance of its subcontractors, when Revenu Quebec does not allow him to verify this information?

If not, how can a Taxpayer really prove the identity of the supplier, as requested by the Court in DRF, without any government provided tools

We will argue before the Court of Quebec a similar case in late September, and we will present an innovative argument that could possibly overrule the existing jurisprudence trend. To be continued.]]><![CDATA[Our comment in the GST & Commodity Tax - SWS Communications]]>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 02:51:43 GMThttp://cdlegal.org/blog-and-articles-of-interest/our-comment-in-the-gst-commodity-tax-sws-communicationsSee article.
]]>