JH CPA – Tax Dispute & Case Insights (FG)

CRA’s recent position on mutual fund trailing commissions has raised an important GST/HST issue for investment dealers and mutual fund managers. In a December 22, 2025 GST/HST interpretation, CRA rejected the argument that GST/HST should not apply to trailing commissions earned by a dealer who did not originally arrange the sale or issuance of the mutual fund trust units or shares. The issue involved two types of dealers: the “Original Dealer,” who arranged the original sale or issuance of the mutual fund units or shares; and the “New Dealer,” who later became entitled to trailing commissions even though it did not arrange the original sale. CRA’s position was that, effective July 1, 2026, mutual fund trailing commissions paid by mutual fund managers to both Original Dealers and New Dealers would generally be subject to GST/HST. That is a significant administrative change. It means CRA does not appear to distinguish, for GST/HST purposes, between the dealer who originally arranged the ...

A recent CRA internal technical interpretation raises an interesting question: if a trust fails to file a T3 return, fails to respond to a demand to file, or makes a related false statement or omission, can CRA assess the penalty against more than one person? The short answer is: yes, in principle — but CRA appears to take a restrained approach. CRA acknowledged that more than one person or partnership could technically meet the statutory conditions for liability under subsection 163(5) of the Income Tax Act. That means the penalty is not necessarily limited to the trust alone. However, CRA also stated that, in most cases, one assessment against the trust itself would normally be sufficient and appropriate to carry out the purpose of the Act and enforce compliance. In other words, CRA does not appear to view subsection 163(5) as a tool for automatically penalizing everyone connected to the trust filing process. The important exception is where another person has separate, serious, or i...

  When CRA’s MyAccount Notice Is Not Enough: Lessons from Haddad The Federal Court’s decision in Haddad v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FC 614 is important not because it changes the TFSA over-contribution rules, but because it reminds CRA that a digital notice path is not automatically a meaningful notice path. The taxpayer received an email notification from CRA on June 4, 2020, saying that a message was available in his CRA MyAccount. The problem was that he could not access MyAccount. During the COVID period, he was working during the day, and CRA’s phone availability was reduced. He believed that if CRA had a serious issue with him, CRA would also contact him by written letter, phone, or a more detailed email. Years later, in May 2024, he learned from a CRA agent that he had been assessed TFSA over-contribution taxes for the 2020, 2021, and 2022 taxation years. He had not noticed the problem earlier because the amounts had been deducted from his annual income tax refund...