Improving Caseload Management of the Tax Court a Priority

In an attempt to quell the litany of litigation in the Tax Court of Canada, the Government is now accepting advice as to how to deal more efficiently with the caseload. Some might argue that which is really needed is a simplification of taxation legislation. While there is no easy way to legislate on the plethora of issues covered by our current legislation, a review of whether everything in our legislation is necessary may also be useful.

Some of the proposals already on the table include (from the Department of Finance):

ï Update the monetary limits for access to the informal appeal procedure, providing taxpayers with greater access to a simplified and cost-effective judicial process and enabling a better balance in the Tax Court of Canada's caseload. Under this proposal, a taxpayer could elect to proceed by way of Informal Procedure where the aggregate of all amounts in issue in an income tax appeal is equal to or less than $25,000 (or where a loss does not exceed $50,000).

ï Also, under a new monetary limit for GST/HST appeals, an appeal involving an amount in dispute in excess of $50,000 would be required to proceed by way of the General Procedure.

ï Allow the Tax Court of Canada to dispose of issues raised in an appeal of an assessment separately, so that some issues can be resolved independently from others and to allow the Minister of National Revenue to give effect to the decision of the Court in respect of those discrete issues.

ï Permit the Tax Court of Canada to hear a question affecting a group of two or more taxpayers that arises out of substantially similar transactions, and provide that the resulting judicial determination is binding across the group.

The problem may well need resolution outside the procedure of the Court first. Tax issues very seldom rely on the exact same facts; the existence or absence of one tiny detail can change the character of a case immensely. Attempting to deal with similar cases together and creating binding judgments on all parties involved is not only contrary to equitable justice, but would only result in more appeals.