Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw & Ethics · 8 years ago

Has the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) become too aggressive in the prosecution of taxpayers?

I'm concerned that cases such as those of Irvin Leroux and Hal Neumann are becoming commonplace, that the agency is improperly directed to use the courts before making any effort to explain the basis of inquiry/reassessment and/or obtain the alleged debt. I am especially concerned at the flurry of proceedings involving small businesses, usually self-represented, that are increasingly attracting jail time. A plumber in Baden, Ont. recently did 15 days in addition to a fine.

Why is there no way to verify CRA personnel?

Why does the agency now prefer to conduct inquiries orally?

See the petition - http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/yes-i-want-a...

Update:

CBC as usual was fed the party line and as usual questioned nothing. Journalists typically feel and probably are out of their depth in the area of tax law so they hit default and become scribes. Republishing such a story is worse than no answer. Think for yourselves! Read the cases! What do they tell you?

2 Answers

Relevance
  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    The reality is that CRA has become incredibly aggressive from coast to coast. In our business we deal with CRA on a daily basis. When it comes to CRA it is clearly not a kinder gentler Canada.

    Answers:

    CRA is required to show identification... All you need to do is demand it.

    Oral questions are a way to fish for information to hang their hat on.

    Dan White

    Source(s): Daily experience, hundreds of audits.
  • 8 years ago

    The Criminal Investigation Program is charged with investigating and if indicated prosecuting cases of tax evasion, fraud and other serious offenses. Of the approximately 185,000 potential cases of tax evasion or fraud identified by the CRA in 2012, only about half of them were even investigated, according to a CBC News report. While the penalties assessed for first offense late filing can be high -- five percent of the balance owed, one percent for every month the payment is late plus a compound daily rate calculated when the debt is paid -- and the penalties escalate to a maximum of 20 percent of the debt for some multiple offenders, the incidence of ending up in jail or prison for simple late filing is low. Therefore criminal prosecution and incarceration are mostly reserved for tax evaders or frauds. However, when the CRA finds evasion or fraud, it rarely settles out of court and has a 98 percent conviction rate . One reason the CRA only investigates half of their cases is the small size (700 employees of the CRA's entire 39,000-person staff) of the CIP. And the reason the CRA focuses on cases with good potential for a return on the government's work is that for the two years recently reported by the Auditor General, a total of $2.8 billion in additional income tax revenue was recovered by those 700 staffers: that's about $4 million/investigator per year. Finally, the reason you have heard of so many cases in recent years is that the CRA publicizes them with gusto because it has successfully lowered the number of cases referred for prosecution by the CIP from 149 in 2009 alone to 204 for the next two years combined, the same years reported by the Auditor General. Those 204 cases ended with just more than 47 years of incarceration, or an average of about 4.34 years per defendant.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.