Tacilauskas v. The Queen, 2012 DTC 1233 [at at 3643], 2012 TCC 288 (Informal Procedure) -- summary under Subsection 163(1)

By services, 28 November, 2015

The taxpayer reported $269,338 of income in his 2008 return, $169,420 of which was dividend income, and $184,537 in 2009, none of which was dividend income. He was assessed penalties under s. 163(1) for unreported dividend income of $31,250 in 2008 and $130,500 in 2009. The taxpayer argued that he had a due diligence defence because his returns were prepared by an accountant, who was a different accountant than the one for the two corporations that had paid the dividends, and who had failed to prepare the appropriate paperwork. Woods J. stated (at para. 15):

In my view, Mr. Tacilauskas did not take sufficient care in either the 2008 or 2009 tax returns to prevent the omissions from income. The dividends were large amounts, and Mr. Tacilauskas had a responsibility to take appropriate steps to ensure that they were reported. It was not enough to assume that an accountant would take care of it.

Topics and taglines
Tagline
reliance on accountant - not diligent - magnitude of omission
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
334792
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Tacilauskas v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2012 DTC 1233 [at 3643], 2012 TCC 288 (Informal Procedure) <strong>[reliance on accountant - not diligent - magnitude of omission]</strong>",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}