Federal Appeals Court Ruling - CRA and defining Spouse

raginduck said:
"Widow to keep $100K from late husband's RRSP after court victory against Canada Revenue Agency"


Loading…

www.cbc.ca
Click to expand...
Interesting. If the CRA was remotely competent, I expect them to work with politicians to have a better system in place at death to avoid missing tons of revenue that was due. That may cause more delays for people dealing with estates.

Why was CRA evaluating tax owed four years after death? That ship has sailed. The person is dead, the estate is closed, it's over. While I think the Jordan decision caused a lot of issues, a similar decision for the CRA seems reasonable. If you don't speak up within six months of final tax filing, it's over, don't waste money doing the investigation.
 
GreyGhost said:
Interesting. If the CRA was remotely competent, I expect them to work with politicians to have a better system in place at death to avoid missing tons of revenue that was due. That may cause more delays for people dealing with estates.

Why was CRA evaluating tax owed four years after death? That ship has sailed. The person is dead, the estate is closed, it's over. While I think the Jordan decision caused a lot of issues, a similar decision for the CRA seems reasonable. If you don't speak up within six months of final tax filing, it's over, don't waste money doing the investigation.
Click to expand...
1) If the executor got a clearance letter the CRA should be out of luck. Trying to collect after four years is a joke. Isn't it 18 months under the justice delayed clause?

2) If you call CRA with a question and you don't like the answer, call back and ask again. You'll get a different answer. Record the best option.
 
I was hoping someone would bring this up on here, the whole thing is bizarre. The spirit of the law seems clear to me, they ruled on the letter of the law, and it sounds like the CRA still shouldn't have gotten the money for entirely different reasons. The ruling SEEMS to be opening an attractive loophole that the CRA will now be desperate to close
 
Relax said:
Belongs in good news thread. Especially "It also ordered the CRA to cover Marlene's legal bills."
Click to expand...
Sort of. I agree with the outcome. The CRA paying her bills means we are paying her lawyers. CRA won't care, it's not their money. Start to force vindictive government employees to personally cover expenses when their witch hunts fail.
 
GreyGhost said:
Sort of. I agree with the outcome. The CRA paying her bills means we are paying her lawyers. CRA won't care, it's not their money. Start to force vindictive government employees to personally cover expenses when their witch hunts fail.
Click to expand...

Damn, good point. Then again, better for me to pay my share of that case where she wins and sets a fair precedent, than another case where someone loses and gets shafted unfairly.
 
GreyGhost said:
Sort of. I agree with the outcome. The CRA paying her bills means we are paying her lawyers. CRA won't care, it's not their money. Start to force vindictive government employees to personally cover expenses when their witch hunts fail.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately it's much like reporting a bad driver to the police, nothing happens.

Idealy there should be a specific complaint process that names names and the slacker gets a negative review and zero raise. Their boss gets a negative review as well and no more executive washroom.

Get rid of all the confidentiality horse crap.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom