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.
Four years later, an assessment from the CRA found Peter had owed nearly $150,000 in income tax when he died.
I’m a curious about how this happened and whether he knew about it.
That’s a lot of income tax owed, but the assessment was 4 years after he died, at which point the estates already been settled, so it seems like there really is no one that they can or should be going after. That’s not fair.
I do have a problem with going “here take my money, oh look I can’t pay that tax I owe now!”. That doesn’t seem like the case here.
I think it would be reasonable for the CRA to update their policy to do a special assessment on an accelerated timeline for this type of case, even if that affects how long executing the will and settling the estate takes.
In general the CRA is really annoying to deal with because tons of things don’t have clear or concrete definitions.
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 analysis (which I grant, may be incorrect) seems to imply this is answering a broader question.
That’s not how case law works
I’m a curious about how this happened and whether he knew about it.
That’s a lot of income tax owed, but the assessment was 4 years after he died, at which point the estates already been settled, so it seems like there really is no one that they can or should be going after. That’s not fair.
I do have a problem with going “here take my money, oh look I can’t pay that tax I owe now!”. That doesn’t seem like the case here.
I think it would be reasonable for the CRA to update their policy to do a special assessment on an accelerated timeline for this type of case, even if that affects how long executing the will and settling the estate takes.
In general the CRA is really annoying to deal with because tons of things don’t have clear or concrete definitions.