What kinds of cases are you looking for?   
< Previous Case Next Case >

GST — retroactively deeming a business to be GST-registered

My client was a manufacturing company. It reorganized to transfer its major assets (a trademark, dies and molds) to a holding company, in a routine asset-protection transaction.

Instead of incorporating a new company for the holding company, my client's lawyer used an existing numbered company, which had been incorporated for another client a few years earlier but had never been used.

The numbered company had been registered for GST five years earlier, and had a GST registration number.

The numbered company was interposed as the sole shareholder of the manufacturing company, and the business assets were transferred to it. An election was made, as permitted by the GST legislation for "closely related" corporations that are GST registrants, for this transfer to take place without any GST applying.

Unfortunately, neither my client nor its lawyer knew that the numbered company's GST registration had been cancelled by the CRA several months earlier. As a result, when the transaction took place the numbered company was no longer GST-registered.

A CRA auditor reviewed the transaction two years later, and determined that the companies did not qualify for the election because the numbered company was not a GST "registrant". The auditor issued an assessment against the numbered company for $128,000 of GST, plus interest and penalty.

I was asked to solve the problem. On its face, the assessment appeared to be correct. Even if the numbered company paid the GST over to the manufacturing company and claimed input tax credits (which was doubtful because the numbered company had not been GST-registered at the time of the transaction), substantial interest and penalty would remain.

Due to my intimate familiarity with all of the GST legislation, I found a solution. For the election to be available at the time of the transaction, the numbered company had to be a GST "registrant", not necessarily GST-registered. The definition of "registrant" in the legislation requires only that the company have been required to register, not necessarily that it have been registered.

The numbered company had leased the trademark, dies and molds back to the manufacturing company. I determined that this agreement to lease back the assets had been entered into orally before the sale of the assets — it had to have been, or the manufacturing company would not have sold its business assets to the holding company. Under a somewhat obscure provision of the legislation, the numbered company was deemed to have made the lease-back supply at the time it entered into this oral agreement, and thus became "required" to register as of that date. As a result, it was a "registrant" and the election had been validly filed.

I filed a Notice of Objection for the manufacturing company, setting out the above analysis, and supporting the case with Affidavits from the company's principals confirming the oral lease-back agreement that was in place at the time of the sale. The CRA appeals officer agreed, and the assessment was cancelled.

Problem vanished!

(2005)