An Alberta widow will be allowed to keep tens of thousands of dollars her late husband left to her in retirement savings after winning a years-long court battle against the Canada Revenue Agency.
The ruling Tuesday said Marlene Enns is exempt from a clause in Canadian tax law that gives the tax agency power to collect unpaid tax debts from spouses or common-law partners in certain cases because, under law, her marriage ended the moment her husband died.
The appeal court ruling settles a question that for years did not have a clear answer, after other cases involving widows in the Tax Court of Canada ended with conflicting answers: what should the definition of “spouse” be in cases like the one involving Enns.
I personally disagree with this decision. I know there are bigger fish to fry but if the husband owed this much in back taxes and had just been refusing to pay them then why shouldn’t the government recover the lost revenue?
This feels ripe for abuse by rich assholes. Evade taxes all your life to set up your inheritor with a big bag of money and a clean slate.
The appeal court ruling settles a question that for years did not have a clear answer, after other cases involving widows in the Tax Court of Canada ended with conflicting answers: what should the definition of “spouse” be in cases like the one involving Enns.
That analysis (which I grant, may be incorrect) seems to imply this is answering a broader question.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Classic CRA bullshit – go after a widow who inherited her husband’s RRSP but don’t even bother all the rich tax evaders in the Panama Papers.
I personally disagree with this decision. I know there are bigger fish to fry but if the husband owed this much in back taxes and had just been refusing to pay them then why shouldn’t the government recover the lost revenue?
This feels ripe for abuse by rich assholes. Evade taxes all your life to set up your inheritor with a big bag of money and a clean slate.
The ruling was specific to her, not for everyone else. She alone is exempt.
That’s not how case law works
That analysis (which I grant, may be incorrect) seems to imply this is answering a broader question.