Tag Archive: director

Tax Court Rules Against CRA Policy On Shareholder Control Of CCPC

by  Julien Bourgeois of Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP

In a decision1 released on April 12, 2012, the Tax Court of Canada (“Court“) concluded that even if 70% of the voting shares of a corporation were owned by non-residents, de jure control could still be held by Canadian residents and the corporation could maintain its status as a Canadian-controlled private corporation (“CCPC“). This was possible due to the presence of a unanimous shareholder agreement (“USA“) that restricted the ability of non-resident shareholders to elect a majority of the directors.

Payroll Withholding Taxes – A notice of assessment is not required for the CRA to enforce collection on unremitted payroll withholding taxes

by Marc Weisman of Torkin Manes LLP

In the last two or three years, the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) has been aggressive in its pursuit of corporate taxpayers and their directors for unremitted payroll withholding taxes and goods and services taxes. As part of our tax practice, we have acted for more than 200 corporate and individual taxpayers in these situations, so we take careful note of court decisions that have a bearing on this field.

In a recent case (Dupont Roofing & Sheet Metal Inc. 2011 DTC 5031), the Federal Court of Canada surprisingly ruled that the CRA is not required to issue a notice of assessment before it enforces collection on unremitted payroll withholding taxes.

Buckingham v. Canada – A New Standard for Due Diligence in Director’s Liability Tax Cases?

by Stevan NovoselacJohn Sorensen

In our article, “The CRA is not a Bank – Director’s Liability in an Age of Economic Uncertainty”,1 we strongly warned corporate directors to make sure that source deductions, GST/HST, employee EI premiums and employee CPP contributions are remitted to the Crown and not used as operating funds, regardless of whether the corporation has cash flow problems.  This is because a corporation’s failure to remit these amounts makes directors personally liable for the default, if:

Deemed Director – When a Resignation is Not Enough

By Eric Koh of Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP

Introduction

A director of a corporation is personally liable under subsection 323(1) of the Excise Tax Act1 (“ETA”) for the failure of the corporation to remit goods and services tax (“GST”).    However, subsection 323(5) imposes a time limit on this liability whereby a director will not be held liable for unremitted GST two or more years after ceasing to be a director.  Unfortunately, the Tax Court of Canada’s (“TCC”) decision in Snively v. The Queen 2 (“Snively”) makes it more difficult for an individual to rely on subsection 323(5).  Indeed, this decision may have broader ramifications on directors’ liability in general, and beyond the ETA.   According to the TCC, an individual may still be a deemed director of a corporation even after formally resigning from that position.

Swiss Cheese D&O Insurance

By Barry J. Reiter of Bennett Jones LLP

Directors’ and officers’ insurance contracts are often riddled with clauses that, while seemingly reasonable and well-intentioned, can lead to bizarre court decisions

Previous columns [Ed.: In Lexpert magazine.] have discussed how directors’ and officers’ insurance programs are “just contracts.” Although the exercise may seem surreal, in circumstances in which the actual insurance policies are typically not available for months after they have been purchased, courts apply normal contract interpretation principles to insurance programs, seeking to discern the “intentions of the parties.” You must, therefore, insist upon receiving your policy documents and you should read them carefully.

An example of what can happen otherwise is illustrated by “insured vs. insured” clauses, which find their way into virtually every D&O policy form in the first instance. These provisions state that there is no insurance coverage in a lawsuit brought by a person or company potentially insured under the policy against anyone else also named in the policy. The purpose of these clauses is

Liability Insurance Policies For Directors And Officers – A Checklist Of Matters To Consider

by Francy Kussner of Goodmans LLP

Directors and officers face a wide and growing range of potential personal liabilities in the course of carrying out their duties. A directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy (or “D&O policy”) can help protect against these risks. D&O policies are negotiable and policy terms and conditions can vary materially. The following is a brief outline of certain issues that directors and officers should consider when reviewing their D&O policy.

Types of Coverage

  • In addition to “Side A” and “Side B” coverage, does the policy also provide “Side C” coverage?

Most policies offer two types of coverage: “Side A”, which covers directors and officers personally for non-indemnified claims, and “Side B”, which reimburses the corporation for the costs of indemnifying directors and officers. In addition, many policies offer “Side C” coverage, which covers claims made against the corporation itself.

Dividends and Accountants’ Risks

A recent discussion with colleagues revealed that many are unaware of the issues that may arise when advising clients whether to declare corporate dividends, including in the case where there exist negative retained earnings.

From the viewpoint of an insolvency practitioner, the picture is quite clear.

A trustee of a bankrupt corporation is permitted to make an application in court to recover against the directors where the corporation has, within the year prior to bankruptcy, redeemed or

Another Corporate Director/Lender Must Pay

On October 6, 2010, in Seier v. The Queen, the Tax Court of Canada provided us with one more example of a lender and corporate director who must pay the GST and payroll withholdings arrears of a failed business.

In this case, a lender, by realizing on his security, becomes the sole director and shareholder of the borrower corporation. He then fails to monitor the corporation’s compliance with the various GST and payroll tax requirements.  As a result, the corporation accumulates in these accounts $60,000 outstanding for which the lender, as corporate director, is assessed.

The Court’s decision is instructive since it paints a picture of absentee management that is common and likely found within your own experience.

Lenders (who upon a liquidation are liable for such debts out of the proceeds) and directors (who are directly liable for such debts) must have monitoring systems in place to limit this risk.

I suggest that some combination of the following could be used to reduce risk:

  1. Use of a third-party payroll service, with all remittances to be made by the service.
  2. All payroll and GST/HST assessments and statements are forwarded for review immediately upon receipt.
  3. An independent accountant is engaged by the lender/director for periodic review of underlying calculations with the accountant’s fees reimbursed by the corporation.
  4. The lender’s/director’s own bookkeeper/accountant provides this periodic review.

If you are using any of these controls, or some other one, please share it by clicking on “Leave a comment” at the top of this post.

Rules for Directors and Officers of Corporations

The following is excerpted from “Directors’ and Officers’ Duties and Liabilities“, August, 2010, by Robert E. Milnes and Kathleen M. Ritchie of Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP.

Practical Suggestions for Complying With Duties and Minimizing Liability

To comply with a director’s or and officer’s duties, and to minimize liabilities, the following rules should be followed:

1. Directors and officers should avoid any conflict of interest, which includes self-dealing of any kind, particularly in respect of share transactions that are motivated by knowledge acquired as an insider.

2. Directors and officers should be aware of the terms of the articles and by-laws of the corporation and should be able to verify, in general terms on an on-going basis, that the corporation’s business and affairs are being managed in accordance with any restrictions contained in such documents.

3. Directors and officers of corporations in regulated industries

New CRA Policy on Accessing Taxpayer Documents – Taxpayers and Accountants Beware

By: Stevan Novoselac and John Sorensen of Gowlings

Introduction

In early June, 2010, the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) released its long awaited administrative policy on gaining access to taxpayer information and documents.  The policy reaffirms the CRA’s position that is entitled to virtually unrestricted access to taxpayer’s information and documents, subject only to solicitor-client and litigation privilege.  As a result, obtaining tax advice from accountants, without involving tax lawyers, puts the confidentiality of the advice, and all of the related information and documents, in jeopardy.

Background

The Income Tax Act (Canada) (“Act”) requires taxpayers to maintain “books and records” to enable taxes payable to be ascertained and to determine other amounts that should have been deducted, withheld or collected.  The Act also confers extremely broad powers on the CRA to access taxpayer information and documents, subject only to the protection of solicitor-client or litigation privilege. 

The CRA first discussed its intention to draft an administrative policy on access to taxpayer information and documents at the Canadian Tax Foundation national conference in 2004 and periodically updated the tax community on the progress of the policy.  As early as 2004, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (“CICA“) wrote to the Minister of National Revenue (“Minister”) urging that CRA access to accountant’s and auditor’s working papers be restricted to “exceptional and well-defined circumstances”, because untrammeled access would have a chilling effect on communications between taxpayers and their advisors.  The CICA’s position was that if the CRA can pry into taxpayers’ private communications with their advisors, taxpayers will be reluctant to seek advice.  This may deprive corporations and ultimately their shareholders of valuable advice, which jeopardizes the integrity of financial reporting, the audit function and corporate governance.

The New Policy

A pre-publication draft of the new CRA policy was released for comments in late 2008.  Unfortunately, the most troubling proposals in the draft remain in the final policy.  For example, both the draft and final policies state that CRA personnel are authorized to request relevant documents during an inspection, audit or examination for any purpose related to administering or enforcing fiscal statutes, where “any purpose” includes “acquiring information for the purpose of substantiating the taxpayer’s position on a specific issue, and identifying audit issues and concerns with regards to tax at risk.” 

Further, both versions of the policy state that CRA officials are authorized to inspect, audit, review or examine both “the books and records of a taxpayer” and any document of the taxpayer or any other person that relates or may relate to the information in a taxpayer’s books and records.  The phrase “any document” includes accountants’ and auditors’ working papers, including “working papers created by or for an independent auditor or accountant in connection with an audit or review engagement, advice papers, and tax accrual working papers (including those that relate to reserves for current, future, potential or contingent tax liabilities).”  Tax accrual workpapers are essentially a roadmap through all of the “soft spots” in a taxpayer’s tax return, prepared for the purpose of calculating reserves for uncertain tax filing positions.  In the draft version of the policy, the CRA acknowledged that tax accrual workpapers may be requested by auditors to expedite the audit and focus the examination on the most significant issues.  Although this language does not appear in the final version, it is obvious that the reason any tax authority seeks to obtain tax accrual workpapers is to have a guided tour of the taxpayer’s tax planning.

Avoiding Bankruptcy

Individuals who are undischarged bankrupts cannot be directors of Ontario corporations.  For this and other reasons, many clients wish to avoid a bankruptcy filing.

Several practitioners have contacted me to find methods of avoiding bankruptcy, so today I will provide a simple outline of your clients’ choices.

Big Brother Is Watching Directors

Directors must always ensure that the proper source deductions from payroll are withheld and then remitted. Under the Income Tax Act 227.1(1) directors who were in office at the time that