At https://www.mondaq.com/canada/income-tax/833802/gordon-et-al-v-the-queen-canadian-tax-lawyer39s-analysis-and-comments
are comments on a court case decided last year, which was fought over
the issue
of whether a CRA Investigation into an SRED practitioner’s routine of
creating
back-dated documents to make it appear that transactions and
circumstances had
occurred when they had not. The court’s findings make sense to me, with
the
exception of the determination that government reports labeling one of
the
individuals connected with the plaintiff as a “troublemaker” were not
damaging
to the subject’s name. The reason given by the Court to support the
finding that
the individual’s reputation was not damaged by the remarks is that such
labeling practices are common within government! So, holding up a
convenience
store (easier now that masks are routinely worn) is alright because
hold-ups
are common? Yikes! It is a sad state into which a Just-Us system has
fallen
when such reasoning passes scrutiny.
It is interesting though that the Court seems to have acknowledged
that where poorly documented transactions or relationships had existed, it is a
satisfactory accounting tactic to post
hoc create missing documentary evidence.
No comments :
Post a Comment