Notice of Appeal - HST - Appellant Combined - L

FORM 21(1)(a)
NOTICE OF APPEAL- GENERAL PROCEDURE

--------------------
TAX COURT OF CANADA
BETWEEN:
Hyun-June Leonard Ro
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TAKE NOTICE THAT Hyun-June Leonard Ro appeals to the Tax Court of Canada from
Objections- Notice of Confirmation Reference GB210011050593, GB210161947542,
GB210161948243, GB210161949545 for the HST Accounts 763906476 RT0001,
763906476 RT0002, 763906476 RT0003, 763906476 RT0004 dated on June 16, 2021
inclusively.
A. Hyun-June Leonard Ro, 62 Gibbs Crescent, Guelph, ON. N1G5B8 appeals to the Tax Court
of Canada for the following accounts:
763906476 RT0001
763906476 RT0002
763906476 RT0003
763906476 RT0004
B. The appellant appeals the Notice of Objections- Confirmations Reference:
GB210011050593
GB210161947542
GB210161948243
GB210161949545
C. The plaintiff contends that Her Majesty the Queen has erred in the aforementioned tax
assessment pursuant to the HST/ Excise Tax Act based on the following:
D. i) Incorrect Calculation Using the Quick Method:
The appellant contends that the Canada Revenue Agency, hereafter referred to as the CRA
used the incorrect taxation method while calculating the appellants tax obligations to Her
Majesty the Queen, inter alia. The appellant furthers states that the CRA arbitrarily used
the ‘traditional method’ as opposed to the ‘quick method’ of accounting, in order to
calculate the appellants HST obligations and disallowed deductions.
The appellant further contends that the ‘quick method’ of accounting was ‘elected’ at the
onset of the appellant’s HST registration on or about October 2019. Gracen Marchand
erroneously calculated the appellant HST’s file. She used the incorrect taxation method
(Quick Method v. Traditional Method). She disallowed deductions and erred in attributing
the total taxes collected by the business in the sum of $5000, to be the amount that would
be remitted from the business owner. The plaintiff contends that the amount a business
collects in taxes is rarely the amount that is remitted by the business owner. She
misinterpreted the Quick Method table and misinterpreted the remittance rate vs. the
collection rate, inter alia. As a result, the appellant indicates that it is important to
distinguish between the two accounting techniques, therefore the following section will
attempt to provide some clarity between the two techniques used by accountants.
A business located in Ontario collects 5% GST from the sale (transfer) of assets to the
company located in Quebec. They then remit a reduced portion based on the ‘quick
method’ rate table found in CRA publication RC4058(E). Based on this rate table, the
business would collect 5%, remit 0% and receive a 2.8% credit+ 1% on first $30k
In comparison, with the traditional method of accounting, GST of 5% would be collected,
deductions or input tax credits would be applied and the remaining GST would be remitted
to Her Majesty the Queen. In the traditional method HST paid of 13% would be deducted
from the 5% that was collected.
The “quick method’ doesn’t allow deductions and only allows you to remit a reduced
percentage of the taxes you have collected.
When a business purchases good for resale in Ontario, they pay 13% in taxes. For example,
a company called Rogistics purchases $350k goods for resale. Rogistics pays 13% HST
and 7% in Duty. When the company sells the $350k of goods to another company for $400k
in Quebec the following example is used to compare the quick method vs. traditional
method
Quick Method
Company in Ontario sells $400k, collects 5% GST. In total they collect $20k in taxes.
When it’s time to remit the taxes collected, they cannot use deductions, etc. so they look at
the Rate Table of the Quick Method and see (0% remittance, 2.8% credit). This means that
they would charge the following:
$400k x 0.028 = $2800 + $300 [1% of $30,000]= $3100 they receive in credit and keep the
$20k of taxes they collected.
Traditional Method
Company in Ontario sells $400k, collects 5% GST. In total they collect $20k in taxes.
When it’s time to remit GST, they deduct the total GST/HST paid on the goods they
purchased for resale [original $350k in electronics] –[deduct] HST paid on allowable
deduction, then remit a total remaining amount to the Government of Canada. They remit
only a portion of the $20k after deductions.
This is a very basic example of the Quick Method. It is ONLY available to small businesses
$400k annual sales or less. Secondly, it must be elected at the onset of your HST Account.
Thirdly, the rates are different for services then it is for goods for resale (4.4% goods for
resale v. 8.8% services).
The ‘quick method’ of accounting was ‘elected’ by the appellant on 2019-10-31. This
means that this method should have been used to calculate the appellants tax obligations to
Her Majesty the Queen, inter alia. The quick method is typically used by business owners
to quickly calculate the HST owed to the CRA. It does not allow you source deductions
i.e., business write-offs, etc. It is a fast and easy method for small business owners to
calculate their HST obligations to the CRA. The plaintiff contends that Gracen Marchand
arbitrarily neglected to use the correct taxation method, thereby construing an act of
misfeasance and gross negligence, whereby the appellant’s HST obligation were
significantly higher based on her negligent actions [emphasis added], respectively. The
appellant questions the legitimacy of such action and contends that if Her Majesty the
Queen should render a decision in favor of the traditional method of accounting which was
erroneously used as opposed to the quick method that was ‘elected’ by the business owner,
then the CRA should disallow the sale (transfer) of assets and reduce the appellant’s HST
obligation to $0.
In the present context, the appellant owns 2 companies, one which is based in Ontario and
another that is based in Quebec. The business owner sells (transfer) assets from the
company that is based in Ontario to the company in Quebec which is a corporation. The
total sale of the assets is $100k. The company in Quebec collects 5% GST during the sale
(transfer) from the Quebec company. When the appellant files his HST at the end of each
reporting period, he would then receive the initial 5% he collected (remittance of 0%) +
2.8% credit on his sale if the appellant used the ‘quick method’+ 1% of first $30k. This
means he would receive a 2.8% credit on his purchase, since he already collected the 5%
from the sale and is able to keep that 5% based on the 0% remittance.
The rate table for the Quick method can be found in the CRA’s publication RC4058E.
Business owners typically look for the prescribed rate according to the rate table. Apply
the rate to the taxes that are collected and remit that portion to the Government assuming
that there is a balance owing. Should there be a credit that would be received by the
business owner, the business owner would then apply for a credit that would be given by
the CRA. The appellant states that it is important to understand how the Rate table is used,
in order to clarify which rate would typically be applicable. As a result, the appellant will
attempt to provide guidance on how to use this very simple table in order to calculate the
tax obligations owing to Her Majesty the Queen.
In order to determine which rate is applicable, it is important to define what a ‘permanent
establishment’, hereafter referred to as P.E. A P.E. is the physical location of where the
business is. The ‘supplies’ is a reference to where the goods would be sold at which
applicable tax rate. For example, a company headquarters in Ontario which sells products
(goods) to Quebec would have a PE with a 13% tax rate and a ‘supplies’ with a 5% tax
rate. According to the table, it would result in a credit being rendered by the CRA (0%
remit + 2.8% credit). 0% remittance refers to not having to remit anything to the
government and keeping the 5% from the initial sale [i.e. You remit nothing to us, and take
an additional 2.8% credit]. The appellant contends that it is important to take note that the
company purchased its good at 13% and now is selling to a province of 5%, meaning its
selling to a province with a lower sales tax bracket [emphasis added].
According to the Quick Method chart, a ‘permanent establishment’ P.E. located in Ontario
who sells supplies to Quebec would result in a (0 remittance+ 2.8% credit). The 0%
remittance is the original 5% HST he collected.
Where the Business is Located-

ONTARIO
Where the
business sells
its supplies to
QUEBEC
What you give the government of

the 5% tax you Collect, so 0% and
2.8% credit for goods
CORRECT: $100k x 2.8% credit [ 100,000 x 0.028= $2800 credit] + [$300- 1%]
INCORRECT: $100k x 5% [100,000 x 0.05= $5000]

Calculations: 100,000 sale
Tax collected: 5%
Adjustments (5% tax + %2.8 credit) + $300 1% on first 30K
Assessed
GST/HST return summary
Line 101 Sales and other revenue $100,000.00
Line 135 Total GST/HST new housing rebates (included in line 108) $0.00
Line 136 Deduction for pension rebate amount (included in line 108) $0.00
Line 105 Total GST/HST and adjustments for period $5,000.00
Total ITC/Adjustments [5% collected- 0% remitted] + 2.8% credit
Line 108 + 1% of 30k -$8240.00
= $5000+ $2940 + $300
Line 109 Net tax $5,000.00
Line 110 Instalments and other annual filer payments $0.00
Line 111 Rebates $0.00
GST/HST due on purchases of real property or purchases of

Line 205 $0.00
emission allowances
Line 405 Other GST/HST to be self-assessed $0.00
Line 114 Refund claimed $0.00
Line 115 Amount owing -$3240.00
ii) Erroneous Use of Gross Negligence Provision:

According to section 285 of the Excise Tax Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. E-15), gross negligence
penalties are applied in cases where there is ‘circumstances’ which amount to making ‘false
or misleading returns, statement, omissions’, etc. The appellant contends that section 285 was
applied erroneously, given the error of using the incorrect taxation method by the CRA
employee Gracen Marchand. In addition, the appellant contends that the provision provides
the statutory requirements prescribed in cases whereby a business owner undertakes
fraudulent misrepresentation, under ‘bad faith’ and by doing so, undermines the tax system
as a whole. Her Majesty the Queen provides this sanction as a deterrent effect to reduce the
number of fraudulent claims, inter alia.
The problem with applying this provision to the current case is that the business owner used
the correct tax method, however the CRA employee erred [emphasis added] in using the
incorrect method (Quick Method vs. Traditional Method). This error by the CRA employee
was viewed as being a case where the appellant undertook fraudulent actions in order to
receive some type of credit on his HST/GST owing. The CRA employee erred [emphasis
added] in assessing his HST/GST file and wrongly used the provision in order to provide
some type of sanction to the business owner. This can be construed as a very serious case of
abuse-of-process and coincidently also gross negligence, not on the part of the business
owner, but on the part of the undertrained CRA employee [emphasis added], respectively.
The appellant contends that the act of the sanction itself, based on the CRA employee’s error,
infringes his constitutional rights prescribed in section 7, 12, 15 of the Charter of Rights and
Freedom. Applying this sanction impedes the constitutional rights safeguarding the business
owner from punitive sanctions prescribed in section 12 of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms [cruel unusual punishment], given the error by the CRA employee to wrongly
apply the incorrect tax method and find some type of fault on the small business owner
infringing section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The appellant’s claim that his
constitutional rights were infringed is based on the premise of judicial fairness, inter alia. He
views this punitive sanction as a form of discrimination based on the fact that the CRA
employee erred in calculating the appellants HST/GST obligations, thereby also infringing
section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The appellant contends that this HST
assessment is a rare case in which all three fundamental rights were breached through an
unsurmountable act of misfeasance for the CRA employee, negligence on part of Her
Majesty the Queen and an abuse-of-process should the tax courts render a decision in favor
of the CRA, respectively.
iii) Allegation of Misfeasance:
Canada Revenue Agency employees are essentially employees of the Crown, therefore are
subject to ensuring ethical conduct where and when required. In this respect, the CRA
employee erred while calculating the appellants HST obligations, then blamed the error on the
appellant, whereby her negligent actions were then viewed as the appellants’ fault. She also
erred by using the incorrect taxation methods, the incorrect penalty (41% vs. 25%) and also
erred in her use of the gross-negligence penalty [emphasis added]. These acts in accordance
with fundamental justice undermine the tax system as a whole and have significantly
diminished public confidence in the tax system, thereby clearly establishing an act of
misfeasance on part of the CRA employee’s Gracen Marchand.

The administration of our tax system is crucial in collecting revenue for our federal, provincial
and municipal governments. In the case at bar, the business owner started a small online
company which grew to 11x online stores partnering with his university students. They
purchased their goods from legitimate wholesale distributors located both in Ontario
(Amazon), New Jersey (BSD Distributors) , Brooklyn (BSD Distributors), Los Angeles
(Quest4Accessories), California (P4C Distributors), China (DHGate) paid 7% customs/duties
+ 13% HST on the wholesale items that they purchased. The online stores sold products in
different marketplaces including ebay, amazon, newegg, etc. In-coming shipments would be
charged the applicable taxes/ import custom duties by the Canada Border Services and were
checked for conformity and compliance to the applicable trademarks, inter alia. Those
shipments were taxed and are available to be deducted using the traditional method of HST
calculations.
This means that the business owner chose to use the ‘quick method’ of tax collections and
when he sought an incremental amount of taxes to be reimbursed by the Government of
Canada, the CRA employee viewed the credit of his HST file as being an act of gross-
negligence. This is a prime example in which the Government of Canada erred in attributing
the fault of Her Majesty the Queens representative with erroneously calculating the HST owing
for the small business owner and somehow viewed the credit as being a case of fraudulent
misrepresentation. After calculating the total using the traditional method of accounting, the
credit that would be rendered to the account would be substantively higher, approximately 5x
per account $15,000-$20,000, or a $100,000 credit or refund. The business owner chose the
quick method due to ease-of-use and its ability to quickly calculate the appropriate HST
obligations, inter alia.
E. The appellant states that his fundamental rights were infringed by the miscalculation of his
HST obligations to Her Majesty the Queen, the misappropriated penalty (sanction) and has
had his fundamdental rights significantly impeded by the CRA employee and its inability to
correctly apply the appropriate taxation method prescribed in the Excise/ HST Act, inter alia.
Therefore, the appellant relies upon the following statutory provisions both in the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and the HST/Excise Act inclusively.
Section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:
2. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual
treatment or punishment.
The HST Excise Act itself provides the legislative framework for Her Majesty the Queen to
regulate, collect, dispense HST/GST taxes by the CRA to Canadians and has been used since
1985. The framework provides the legislative authority to administer the HST/GST system to
business owners. The Quick Method of HST calculation was designed to provide a very simple
tax table for business owners to quickly calculate their HST obligations to the CRA.
Transparency of this system is crucial for Her Majesty the Queen’s representatives and the
HST/GST filers, thereby providing guidance in the CRA manual RC4058E, thereby diminishing
cases of confusion on both part of Her Majesty the Queen’s representative and the business
owners themselves, inter alia.
The punitive sanction (penalty) of gross negligence in the case at bar is quite troubling given the
fact that the CRA employee erred in her use of the correct taxation method, then attributed the
error to the business owner, thereby breaching the appellants fundamental freedoms pursuant to
section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom. Section 285 of the Excise Tax Act (1985)
provides guidance on how the Excise tax Act sanctions negligent cases of HST returns:
285 Every person who knowingly, or under circumstances amounting to gross
negligence, makes or participates in, assents to or acquiesces in the making of a false
statement or omission in a return, application, form, certificate, statement, invoice
or answer (each of which is in this section referred to as a “return”) made in respect
of a reporting period or transaction is liable to a penalty of the greater of $250 and
25% of the total of
• (a) if the false statement or omission is relevant to the determination of
the net tax of the person for a reporting period, the amount determined
by the formula
A-B
The problem in this case is that the appellant calculation using the quick method was correct and
the CRA erred in her calculation. She used the amount that was collected by the business owners,
in the sum of $5000 as the amount that the business owner would remit [emphasis added]. Rarely
does a business owner remit the same amount they collected for taxes due to business write-offs,
input tax credits, etc. She then penalized the HST filer with a gross-negligent penalty in the sum
of $2,060 assessed. This means that Her Majesty the Queens representative penalized the
appellant with a 41% penalty [$2060/ $5000] in contravention of section 285 of the Excise Tax
Act which indicates that a penalty if deemed by the CRA, is 25% and not 41% of the total taxes
that is remitted.
The penalty itself should not have been rendered by Her Majesty the Queen’s representative
given the fact that the formula used to calculate the appellant HST obligation omitted any type of
deductions and was not calculated using the correct quick method pursuant to the appellants
‘election’ on or about October 2019.
In the legislative framework, two rate tables provide clarity on which table is applicable for
determining the remittance rate for small business owners. The first table is for business owners
providing services and the second table provides guidance for those business owners who sell
products/ goods. In the present context, the error was not on part of the small business owner, but
in fact on the part of Her Majesty the Queens representative who negligently used the incorrect
taxation method and then attributed the error to the business owner. This can be construed as a
blatant case of misfeasance and has subjected the small business owner to a very tyrannical and
oppressive tax system, thereby infringing section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right
not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of
fundamental justice.
The appellant contends that applying the incorrect tax method for the small business owner has
deprived the business owner of life, liberty and security of the persons, thereby breaching his
fundamental rights pursuant to section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the present
context, the business owner has been accused of gross negligence, whereby he has been subjected
to a punitive sanction (penalty), however the sanction itself was a direct responsibility of the error
by the CRA employee Gracen Marchand, not on the part of the business owner [emphasis added].
F. The deprivation of his fundamental freedoms and constitutional privileges over the course of the
business owners tax appeal and repeated error by Her Majesty the Queen’s representative at the
CRA demonstrates an abuse-of-process, whereby the business owner has appealed his HST
assessment and the appeal found that the CRA employee had not erred. The problem is confounded
by a system which allows arbitrary taxation methods or even worse, underqualified CRA
representatives to administer the HST Act without the proper training to do so. In terms of
evaluating the HST owing to the CRA, a very simple calculation could have determined who was
at fault of the error and could have easily been rectified, if the appropriate remedial steps had been
taken when the appellants HST file went for a review [i.e., Notice of Objection]. Nonetheless, the
appellant has chosen to provide clear instructions on how to find the proper rate for the applicable
province, whereby he has demonstrated how to determine where a PE is located and also where
the PE sells his goods or services too in the previous section.

G. The appellant seeks remediation pursuant to section 24.1 and 24.2 of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, whereby the Tax Court of Canada will apply to correct taxation method -Quick
Method- pursuant to publication RC4058 and a credit being rendered on the appellants HST
account.
Any other relief should the Tax Court of Canada deem as just
Date of Notice:
August 17, 2021
Hyun-June Leonard Ro
205-1172 Bay Street
Toronto, ON
M5S 2B4
T: (519) 994-8994
B. Statement of relevant facts in support of the appeal.
1) Accounting HST Calculation

2) Copies of Statement 763906476 RT0001, 763906476 RT0002, 763906476 RT0003,
763906476 RT0004
3) Notice of Objection
EXHIBIT 1
CALCULATIONS
CORRECT: $100k x 2.8% credit [ 100,000 x 0.028= $2800 credit] +

[$300- 1%]
INCORRECT: $100k x 5% [100,000 x 0.05= $5000]
EXHIBIT 2
QUICK METHOD CHART
Where the Business is Located- ONTARIO
Which
Province The business remits 0% and gets a
2.8% credit
they SELL
too
EXHIBIT 3
PO Box 638, St Central Halifax, NS, B3J2T5
Date Jun 16, 2021

Account Number 76390 6476 RT0001
Case number GB2100 1105 0593
HYUN-JUNE L RO
SBT PURCHASING CO.
C/O LEONARD RO
62 GIBBS CRES
GUELPH ON N1G 5B8
Notice of confirmation
This notice refers to your objection dated January 16, 2021, to the goods and services tax/harmonized
sales tax (GST/HST) assessment for the period of October 31, 2019, to December 31, 2013.
__ The Appeals Division reconsidered the reassessment, based on the information and reasons included __
in your objection, and the Minister of National Revenue has made the following decision.
We have confirmed the reassessment. Therefore, no adjustment will be made.
The basis of your objection is that you disagree with GST collectible assessed in the amount of
$5,000, disallowed input tax credits of $8,240, and the penalties of $87 and $2,060 assessed.
A review of the facts and documents shows that GST collectible assessed remains payable pursuant
to subsection 221(1) since you reported sales of $100,000 and no documentation was provided to
support that these sales were exempt or zero-rated. The input tax credits were disallowed since no
supporting documentation was provided and we were therefore unable to verify that your claims meet
the documentary requirements, pursuant to subsections 169(1) and 169(4) of the Excise Tax Act.
Furthermore, gross negligence penalties were assessed pursuant to section 285 of the Excise Tax Act
as four identical credit returns were submitted for four different accounts, no documentation was
provided to show the business engages in commercial activity, and the documents that were provided
were determined not to be reliable. We have determined that you have been grossly negligent by
making false statements in a return, application, form, certificate, statement, invoice, or answer.
The failure to file penalty was assessed pursuant to section 280.1 of the Excise Tax Act as the return
was filed on May 22, 2020, where as the return due date was January 31, 2020.
__ __
Your objection is not allowed and the reassessment is confirmed.
Note that we will cancel the arrears interest/penalty for the period of April 23, 2021, to May 28, 2021,
under the taxpayer relief provisions. If you want us to consider any remaining interest or penalties, you
must submit a relief request. For more information on the taxpayer relief provisions and related forms
and publications, go to canada.ca/taxpayer-relief.
Section 306 of the Excise Tax Act says that, if you disagree with this decision, you may appeal to the
Tax Court of Canada within 90 days from the date of the notice of confirmation. For information on
how to file an appeal, see the publication RC4443-3, Appealing GST/HST assessments to the Tax
Court of Canada, at canada.ca/cra-publication-rc4443-3. You can also get up to date information by
going to the Tax Court of Canada website at tcc-cci.gc.ca.
Page 1 of 2
Were you satisfied with the decision on your objection? Your opinion is important to us. Please take 5
minutes to complete an anonymous survey. Go to canada.ca/cra-objections-survey-2
If you have any questions, please contact me at 1-833-446-0916 or by fax at 1-866-443-4955 (toll-
free) or 1-705-670-6649 (local).
To help us serve you better during this pandemic period, contact us online using My Business Account
at canada.ca/my-cra-business-account. Also, sign up to receive email notifications. Email
notifications from the Canada Revenue Agency will let you know when you have mail to view in My
Account or My Business Account and when important changes are made on your account. This will
allow us to communicate more quickly with you.
Sincerely,
Gracen Marchand
Appeals Officer
Appeals Division
Page 2 of 2
Date Jun 16, 2021

HYUN-JUNE L RO
WATTS SCALES ENTERPRISE
C/O HYUN-JUNE RO
62 GIBBS CRES
GUELPH ON N1G 5B8
The basis of your objection is that that you disagree with GST collectible assessed in the amount of
$5,000, disallowed input tax credits of $8,240, and the penalty of $2,060 assessed.
support that the sales were exempt or zero-rated. The input tax credits were disallowed since no
__ Note that we will cancel the arrears interest/penalty for the period of April 23, 2021, to May 28, 2021, __
Page 1 of 2
free) or 1-705-670-6649 (local).
Sincerely,
Gracen Marchand
Appeals Officer
Appeals Division
Page 2 of 2
Date Jun 16, 2021

HYUN-JUNE L RO
CELLULAR CANADA
62 GIBBS CRES
GUELPH ON N1G 5B8
Page 1 of 2
free) or 1-705-670-6649 (local).
Sincerely,
Gracen Marchand
Appeals Officer
Appeals Division
Page 2 of 2
Date Jun 16, 2021

HYUN-JUNE L RO
RUDOLPH WATTS CO
62 GIBBS CRES
GUELPH ON N1G 5B8
Page 1 of 2
free) or 1-705-670-6649 (local).
Sincerely,
Gracen Marchand
Appeals Officer
Appeals Division
Page 2 of 2

Notice of Appeal - HST - Appellant Combined - L

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notice of Appeal - HST - Appellant Combined - L

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FORM 21(1)(a)

NOTICE OF APPEAL- GENERAL PROCEDURE

TAX COURT OF CANADA

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Objections- Notice of Confirmation Reference GB210011050593, GB210161947542,

GB210161948243, GB210161949545 for the HST Accounts 763906476 RT0001,

of Canada for the following accounts:

B. The appellant appeals the Notice of Objections- Confirmations Reference:

D. i) Incorrect Calculation Using the Quick Method:

the ‘traditional method’ as opposed to the ‘quick method’ of accounting, in order to

calculate the appellants HST obligations and disallowed deductions.

In comparison, with the traditional method of accounting, GST of 5% would be collected,

from the 5% that was collected.

percentage of the taxes you have collected.

they would charge the following:

$20k of taxes they collected.

only a portion of the $20k after deductions.

resale v. 8.8% services).

tax obligations owing to Her Majesty the Queen.

In order to determine which rate is applicable, it is important to define what a ‘permanent

selling to a province with a lower sales tax bracket [emphasis added].

remittance is the original 5% HST he collected.

Where the Business is Located-

What you give the government of

INCORRECT: $100k x 5% [100,000 x 0.05= $5000]

Adjustments (5% tax + %2.8 credit) + $300 1% on first 30K

GST/HST return summary

Line 101 Sales and other revenue $100,000.00

Line 105 Total GST/HST and adjustments for period $5,000.00

Total ITC/Adjustments [5% collected- 0% remitted] + 2.8% credit

Line 108 + 1% of 30k -$8240.00

= $5000+ $2940 + $300

Line 109 Net tax $5,000.00

Line 110 Instalments and other annual filer payments $0.00

Line 111 Rebates $0.00

GST/HST due on purchases of real property or purchases of

Line 405 Other GST/HST to be self-assessed $0.00

Line 114 Refund claimed $0.00

Line 115 Amount owing -$3240.00

ii) Erroneous Use of Gross Negligence Provision:

the statutory requirements prescribed in cases whereby a business owner undertakes

number of fraudulent claims, inter alia.

of the CRA, respectively.

iii) Allegation of Misfeasance:

misfeasance on part of the CRA employee’s Gracen Marchand.

(Quest4Accessories), California (P4C Distributors), China (DHGate) paid 7% customs/duties

when he sought an incremental amount of taxes to be reimbursed by the Government of

obligations, inter alia.

Rights and Freedoms and the HST/Excise Act inclusively.

Section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

owners themselves, inter alia.

285 Every person who knowingly, or under circumstances amounting to gross

negligence, makes or participates in, assents to or acquiesces in the making of a false

statement or omission in a return, application, form, certificate, statement, invoice

or answer (each of which is in this section referred to as a “return”) made in respect

of a reporting period or transaction is liable to a penalty of the greater of $250 and

25% of the total of

• (a) if the false statement or omission is relevant to the determination of

‘election’ on or about October 2019.

Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of

the PE sells his goods or services too in the previous section.

August 17, 2021