To date, we have used the XXXX legal defense fund to cover the costs of
(1) addressing the CRA’s initial requests for information and do*****entation regarding the donation program
(2) making submissions to the CRA to support our position that our clients are entitled to the tax credits they claimed, and
(3) communications with our clients and their financial planners regarding the status of the dispute.
……The XXXX legal defense fund is now fully depleted. As a result, purchasers who wish to dispute the CRA must now pay the cost of retaining professional tax litigations.
知道律师的费用吗？税务官司（tax litigation）每小时$450-600。
（五）来自税务局的警告Taxpayer Alert
Potential investors reminded to exercise caution with respect to certain donation arrangementsAs the calendar year end approaches, investors may see an increasing number of advertisements for tax shelter donation arrangements.The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) reminds investors that the proposed legislative changes announced by the Department of Finance on December 5, 2003, to limit the tax benefits of charitable donations made under tax shelter and other arrangements, are in effect.Investors should be aware of the risks associated with participating in certain tax shelter donation arrangements, including gifting trust arrangements, leveraged cash donations, and buy-low, donate-high arrangements. The CRA previously alerted investors about these risks in November 2003 and again in November 2004, advising investors to take a number of precautions to protect their interests. A tax shelter number is used for identification purposes only and does not guarantee that taxpayers will receive the proposed tax benefits. It enables the CRA to identify all tax shelters and their investors. The CRA then reviews these tax shelters to ensure that the tax benefits being claimed meet the requirements of the Income Tax Act. Although most tax returns are assessed as filed, the CRA generally has three years from the date of assessment to reassess taxpayers. The fact that investors in some of these tax shelter donation arrangements have not been reassessed should not be interpreted as the CRA’s acceptance of the arrangement. Such audits may take more than one year to complete.The CRA recommends that anyone considering participating in tax shelter donation arrangements obtain independent legal and tax advice.
在National Post的2005年11月26日的文章“Taxpayers denied ‘inflated valuations’”中提到一个高额退税的经典案例，Nash案。这起案子中，牵涉到三个人，分别是Caedmon Nash, Barbara Quinn and Susan Tolley。这三个人只是1,850名CVI Art Management（Promoter）购买者的代表。CVI Art Management向购买者销售限量版艺术品，帮助他们找到艺术品评估机构，并负责找能够开出捐款收据的慈善组织。Nash是B.C.省的一个警察，他以$8,667的价格购买了85件艺术品，两个月后，Nash把其中的84件捐给了美国密西根州的Ferris State大学（税务局允许的捐赠对象），并收到了$29,400的收据。Quinn花了$8,648元购买了48件艺术品捐给了In-Kind Canada并收到$25,280的收据。Tolly购买了100件艺术品收到$28,235的收据，并捐赠给了Fresno Pacific University。三人每人因此可得退税约$13,000。税务局裁定这三人的捐赠应该按市场价值（marker value）而不是经过某独立鉴定机构评估的价值（$20,000）。代理Nash官司的律师事务所是Strikeman Elliot LLP Barristers & Solicitors。最开始,税务法庭（Tax Court of Canada）法官Mr. Justice Bell判决税务局败诉，但税务局随之上诉并赢得了联邦上诉法庭(Federal Court Appeal)的支持。联邦税务法庭首先质疑（经销商）Promoter为什么会以市场价格1/3的低价销售这些艺术品给三个人。联邦税务法庭认为税务法庭没有实施自己的判断，而完全依赖于艺术品评估机构的估价。联邦法庭在随后的解释中说：税务法庭（Tax Court）犯了的最重要且明显（palpable and overriding）的错误在于捐赠者得到3倍于实际捐赠额的收据却没有合理的解释（fair market value of property to be three times the amount paid for the property with no credible explanation.）
2006年4月，加拿大最高法庭(Supreme Court of Canada)拒绝聆讯该案，宣布了此案的终结。
这条新闻还没有人评论喔，等着您的高见呢
大家正在围观
