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

Payroll withholdings — penalty for late remittance

My client was a physician, in practice for many years. He had employees and always remitted their source deductions (payroll withholdings for income tax, CPP and EI) on time.

In September 2008, my client incorporated his practice. His corporation took over the business and the payroll withholdings, and my client's bookkeeper advised the CRA accordingly.

In December 2008, the CRA advised my client that he qualified for the "Quarterly Remittance Initiative", under which small employers with a good compliance history are permitted to remit their payroll withholdings quarterly instead of monthly. He faxed his bookkeeper this information, not realizing that this letter applied only to him personally (even though he had stopped employing anyone) and not his corporation of the same name plus "Professional Corporation". The CRA letter did not take into account that the CRA had already been advised that my client was not longer carrying on his practice in his own name.

The corporation therefore switched to quarterly filing, remitting its January-March 2009 withholdings by April 15, 2009, and its May-June 2009 withholdings by July 15, 2009, as advised in the CRA's letter. In March 2009 the CRA sent a letter asking why no source deductions had been remitted, and the bookkeeper wrote back to point out that the CRA had advised in December 2008 that remittances could now be made quarterly. The CRA did not reply to this letter or explain to the corporation that it had to remit monthly.

In July 2009, the CRA assessed the corporation a substantial penalty for making its remittances late, as well as interest on the penalty. The bookkeeper applied to the CRA for "Taxpayer Relief" to cancel the penalty and interest. The CRA denied the request.

At this point the client came to me.

I wrote the CRA a "second level appeal" letter, asking for Taxpayer Relief. I described the facts and backed this up with documentation including Affidavits from my client and his bookkeeper. I showed that the CRA's letter of December 2008 was a "direct intrusive act" that caused the corporation to make its remittances late; that the CRA should not have sent this letter after being advised that the business had incorporated; and that the CRA should have responded to the bookkeeper's March 2009 explanation as to why the January monthly remittance had not been made. I showed how the circumstances fit the CRA's published guidelines for Taxpayer Relief in several respects.

The CRA agreed, and cancelled the penalty.

Problem vanished!

(2010)