http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/180709/index.do
2269619 Ontario Inc. (September 27, 2016 – 2016 TCC 211, V. Miller J.).
Précis: The taxpayer was incorporated by a Mr. Billing and provided trucking services. It claimed that the services it provided were zero-rated but CRA assessed it for GST. The taxpayer appealed to the Tax Court in respect of 2012 and 2013. The Court held that the taxpayer had not established on the evidence that it had provided zero-rated trucking supplies. The Court did however adjust its receipts and, accordingly, its Input Tax Credits for 2012. An appeal for 2013 was quashed since no notice of objection had been filed. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
Decision: Mr. Billing was the sole witness for the taxpayer and testified through an interpreter. The Court found that in order to establish that the taxpayer had provided zero-rated supplied it would have to establish five things:
[12] The conditions that must be satisfied in order for a supply to be considered zero-rated were summarized by David Sherman as follows:
1) It has to be a “freight transportation service”, which means a service of transporting tangible personal property as defined by subsection 1(1) of Part VII of Schedule VI;
2) The supply has to be made by a “carrier”, which is a person who supplies a freight transportation service as defined by subsection 123(1) of the Excise Tax Act;
3) The supply has to be made to a second “carrier”. The second carrier must be the person who is contractually obligated to pay the first carrier;
4) The service is part of a “continuous freight movement”, which means “the transportation of tangible personal property by one or more carriers to a destination specified by the shipper of the property, where all freight transportation services supplied by the carriers are supplied as a consequence of instructions given by the shipper of the property”;
5) The second carrier is neither the “shipper”, as defined by subsection 1(1) of Part VII of Schedule VI, nor the “consignee”.
The Court found that the evidence of Mr. Billing did not establish those points:
[13] Mr. Billing’s evidence was vague and inconsistent. The Appellant did not give sufficient evidence for me to conclude that it was an interliner and the services it provided were zero-rated. There was no evidence from which I could conclude that the conditions in number 3, 4 or 5 were satisfied.
The Court did however somewhat adjust its receipts (from $97,243 in 2012 to $84,324) and, accordingly, its Input Tax Credits (an additional $902.09). An appeal for 2013 was quashed since no notice of objection had been filed. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.