The taxpayer failed to report nearly $1,800 in income for 2006, but she had reason to believe her employer had made source deductions in respect of that income. Accordingly, she established a due diligence defence and was not liable under s. 163(1) for a 10% penalty in respect of roughly $38,000 of unreported income in 2007. In so finding, Little J. remarked at para. 13 that the equities of the case were in the taxpayer's favour because the 10% penalty for the 2007 amount, roughly $3800, was over twice the unreported amount in 2006 that gave rise to the penalty.
Topics and taglines
Tagline
penalty inequitable where it exceeds prior unreported amount
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
334787
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Alcala v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2010 DTC 1147 [at 3277], 2010 TCC 198 (Informal Procedure) <strong>[penalty inequitable where it exceeds prior unreported amount]</strong>",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Alcala v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2010 DTC 1147 [at 3277], 2010 TCC 198 (Informal Procedure) <strong>[penalty inequitable where it exceeds prior unreported amount]</strong>",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}