The taxpayer, which was a non-resident corporation that filed tax returns for the relevant taxation years late but with no tax owing, was liable to a penalty under s. 162(2.1). The ordinary meaning of the word "liable" ("responsible at law"), the contrasting use of the terms "liable" and "payable" in the relevant provisions and the fact that this interpretation was consistent with an interpretation that the enactment of s. 162(2.1) was intended by Parliament to put some teeth into the filing requirements for non-resident corporations, suggested that a corporation would be considered to be "liable to a penalty" under s. 162(1) even if such penalty was nil.
Topics and taglines
Words and phrases
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
334769
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a name=\"ExidaDTC1278\"></a>Exida.com LLC v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2009 DTC 1278, 2009 TCC 373 (Informal Procedure), rev'd <a href=\"#ExidaDTC5101\">above</a>.",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a name=\"ExidaDTC1278\"></a>Exida.com LLC v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2009 DTC 1278, 2009 TCC 373 (Informal Procedure), rev'd <a href=\"#ExidaDTC5101\">above</a>.",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}