Wright is Wrong….Again!!!

Once again, I am personally forced to swallow a tough court decision, as the case of Pechet v. The Queen (2009 DTC 5189) has been dismissed by the Federal Court of Appeal. This case overturned the informal procedure Tax Court decision of Wright v. The Queen (2001 DTC 437) originally argued  (and won) by yours truly.

The Wright case dealt with interest on unpaid non-resident withholding taxes. Under Part XIII of the Act, anyone paying rent to a non-resident must withhold tax based on the gross amount paid. The rate is 25% unless reduced by treaty. The basis for withholding may be reduced to the net amount after expenses if an undertaking is filed with the CRA and form NR6 is filed. (For more, see my post on Non-resident Real Estate Investors)

If the non-resident recipient files an income tax return under section 216 of the Act by the required deadline, tax under Part I of the Act is applied “in lieu of” the Part XIII tax withheld. In essence, any tax withheld in excess of the Part I liability is refunded.

Where the Part XIII tax is not withheld, but the section 216 is filed, the CRA’s position is to charge interest based on the withholding tax that should have been remitted. The original argument in Wright was that if the filing of the 216 return replaces the Part XIII liability with the Part I liability, then there is no longer any tax upon which an interest calculation may be made. The Tax Court agreed, and a loophole seemed to be exposed.

The Pechet case heard in Tax Court overturned Wright, but there was still a glimmer of hope as it was appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal.

Now, sadly, it appears my own personally victory remains just that. Since decisions in  the informal procedure cannot be appealed, my client’s victory is final and my Tax Court record is still 3-0. However, my legacy as a precedent-setting barrister is over for good.

The Court of Appeal in Pechet upheld the decision of the lower court and concluded that the filing of a return under section 216 of the Act does not retroactively eliminate the requirement to withhold under Part XIII. Rather, the withholding requirements continue to apply, up until the point in time when the tax liability of the non-resident has shifted from Part XIII to Part I. The phrase “in lieu of” does not mean that the Part XIII liability never existed, but that it is replaced, at the time of the filing of the return, with the Part I tax liability. Any interest accruing on unpaid withholding tax up to that point must be paid.

This interpretation, in all fairness, seems to be the correct application of the provisions, given the scheme and intent of the Income Tax Act as it applies to non-resident taxpayers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *