Douglas v. The Queen, 2012 DTC 1114 [at at 3083], 2012 TCC 73 (Informal Procedure) -- summary under Subsection 162(7)

By services, 28 November, 2015

Woods J. found that the taxpayer had a due diligence defence against s. 162(7) penalties in his 2008 taxation year given that the taxpayer had no tax payable for that year. She agreed with the taxpayer that it is "common knowledge" that a taxpayer is allowed to file a return late if no tax is payable (para. 11). Moreover, the taxpayer had complied with the instructions on the T1135 form, which stated that the taxpayer should "complete and file this statement with your tax return...", when he included the T1135 with his return in 2010. Woods J. stated (at para. 14):

Although the penalty in subsection 162(7) is strict and Parliament has not provided for a due diligence defence, this Court has held that even strict penalties should not be applied if a taxpayer has taken all reasonable measures to comply with the legislation... .

Topics and taglines
Tagline
late filing of T1135 was excusable as no obligation to timely file T1
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
334777
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a name=\"Douglas\"></a>Douglas v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2012 DTC 1114 [at 3083], 2012 TCC 73 (Informal Procedure)",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}