http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/108540/index.do
Lefrançois v. The Queen (March 3, 2015 – 2015 TCC 55, Favreau J.).
Précis: The appellant’s father transferred $20,000 to her at a time when he owed roughly $1,000 in back GST. She was assessed with her father’s GST arrears. The appellant claimed the transfer was the return of excess funds she had paid to her father for the purchase of a condominium (26 Bourget Street, Gatineau). The Court did not accept the appellant’s evidence.
Decision: This decision was simply based on the inadequacy of the appellant’s records and testimony:
[27] The appellant and her father claim that she paid him a total amount of $358,649.76 for the construction of her housing unit at 26 Bourget Street, but no evidence of this transfer of money was filed with the Court. In her testimony, the appellant could not provide any clarifications about the advances given to her father or to Investar inc.
[28] Finally, I would like to note the confusion surrounding the actual construction cost of the unit located at 26 Bourget Street; we do not know whether it was $338,000 or $310,440.43 as the appellant’s father claims. This only shows the confusion, disorder and lack of reliable accounting records surrounding the transactions of Mr. Lefrançois.
[29] Given the inconsistencies in the explanations provided by the appellant and by her father and given the lack of tangible evidence that the appellant had advanced to her father the amounts totalling $358,649.76, I cannot agree that the amount of $20,000 may be considered as the repayment of an excess amount of the actual construction cost of the immovable located at 26 Bourget Street.
[30] For all these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
TAGS: Excise Tax Act, GST Litigation