The CRA Wants My $$$

posted at 11:49 am
on Feb. 1, 2012

Comments: 1 so far

Permalink

So, the CRA finally sent back their assessment of how much we owe extra for 2008 and 2009.

We got them all the paperwork and receipts and all the other stuff they asked for in April 2011, and it was January before we got their reply.  Not that I mind, but that’s a long time to wait for what we KNEW was going to be bad news.

They claim, together over those two years, Susie and I actually made about $30,000 more than we said we did, combining income they say we didn’t report, and expenses claimed that they are disallowing.  To which I replied, “Wow! We’re richer than we think! Call Scotiabank!”

I jest.  But here are some of the things they disallowed: 
* unclaimed interest that we actually did claim
* insurance we paid for, for reasons I can’t figure out
* that whole bad debt thing from the client I sued? yeah, can’t claim that

Then it gets even more bizarre. They disallowed:
* us going to South by Southwest, the biggest Internet conference in the U.S. (“This appears to be a music festival.”)
* Susie going to Kuala Lumpur and Singapore where she was paid to lead a blogging training session (“Outside of your business geographic location”)
* us going to Boulder to work with our employee Justin (“No evidence that this trip was business related.”)

They also informed us that we (and anyone, really, they aren’t picking on us) can only claim two conferences a year according to tax law.  Any additional conferences are not tax deductible. It’s the LAW.

Now, I’m not going to badmouth the CRA here or talk too much about our rebuttals.  But I will say that this feels like the end product of a general attitude that the Canadian government seems to have overall: namely, that “work” is something best performed at a desk not at a home, 9-5 and not mixed in with other activites, and you should make Canadian things to sell to Canadian people, that travelling too much and participating in a global community of entrepreneurs and creators is discouraged, and that people who are one role in your life (wife, mother, brother-in-law) can’t possibly be also something else (business parter, client, employee) legitimately, without there being something “fishy” going on.

We’ll see what happens now.  First is a rebuttal with evidence and logic, then there’s an appeals process.  Stay tuned.

Who has mentioned this item?