Before finding that a due diligence defence had not been made out respecting the imposition of a 10% penalty under s. 227(8)(a) respecting failure to withold on consideration, paid to a non-resident company ("Marco"), which the taxpayer unsuccessfully argued was not for "services," and after noting (at para. 40) that a due diligence defence, based on Consolidated Canadian Contractors, was available if it could be made out on the facts, Lamarre J stated (at paras. 41-43):
The issue then becomes one of whether the appellants can positively prove that all reasonable care was exercised to ensure that errors not be made (see Pillar Oilfield Projects Ltd. v. The Queen, [1993] G.S.T.C. 49 (T.C.C.)). This Court has said that a taxpayer is expected to comply with the requirements of the Act with a high degree of diligence, using the sources of information, facilities and resources available to that taxpayer. (See Bennett v. The Queen, 96 DTC 1630 and Somnus Enterprises Ltd. v. The Queen, [1995] G.S.T.C. 4.)
...[T]he appellants did not produce any evidence as to the steps they took with respect to their withholding obligation. Counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants had obtained advice from their professional advisors and that the appellants were justified in believing that no tax was payable by Marco just on a common sense interpretation of the Licence Agreements.
I wonder why those agreements were not filed in evidence if counsel wanted to rely on them to invoke the due diligence defence.