2(1) ITA imposes taxes on residents of Canada, not only on their Canadian source income but on their worldwide income. The limits on this general rule are few, narrow and require specialized expert advice to interpret (e.g., in-coming immigrants and Tax Treaties).
Just so we're clear, what we are talking about here is the crime of tax evasion.
In the post 9/11 world, secrecy doesn't exist like it did.
Domestically in the U.S. the Bank Secrecy Act (1970; "BSA") was expanded and clarified after 9/11 with passage of the USA Patriot Act (2001; HR 3162 RDS). Congress decided that an effective way to catch terrorists was to monitor cash transaction and require reporting from "money services Businesses". Since the threshold for transactions in now in aggregate US$1,000 per day, it's a very tight filter.
Canada established The Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) to collect, analyze and, when appropriate, disclose financial intelligence on suspected money laundering, cash transactions and terrorist financing activities.
Internationally the U.S. used its political and diplomatic clout to step up foreign disclosure of suspicious transactions.
Canada and the U.S. belong to various international organizations that share financial and other information. One of the most dreaded of these among tax havens is The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ("OECD"), which has obtained commitments from 33 of the world's 35 listed tax havens to comply with the OECD's principles of transparency and effective exchange of information.
By compelling tax havens to disclose banking information OECD members obtain fiscal information for the one purpose (combating money laundering and tracing terrorist's funds), which they can then use for another purpose (fighting fraud and other tax crimes).
It is myth number five that you can access or use offshore money and not have be discovered; it can happen in any of a thousand different ways, the majority of which his entirely beyond your control.
If a taxpayer finds themself in this position and wants to take advantage of an amnesty provision, then must retain the services of a tax lawyer. Because communications with an accountants aren't usually privileged (in Canada - Baron et al. v. The Queenm [1990] 1 C.T.C. 125 (F.C.A.); or in the U.S. - U.S. v. Arthur Young et al., (1984) 465 U.S. 805 (S.C.)) only a lawyer can achieve this without disclosing their client's before the terms are agreed to, and reduced to writing.
CRA Is There To Help
CRA says it wants you to be, "treated fairly and have the information, advice?[you] need to meet [your] obligations:" http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/agency/fairness/rights-e.html.
Except CRA doesn't, and can't, hold itself accountable for any "information [or] advice" it gives. If they make a mistake, and you rely on their wrong 'advice', it will be you who will pay.
CRA has an opinion on everything to do with taxes; but having an opinion is no guarantee that the opinion is correct. To do what CRA says is the safe decision, but it may not always be the right decision: Canada v. Imperial Oil Ltd., [2004] 2 C.T.C. 190 (Fed. C.A.).
Caveat: Employees have little, or no, scope to tax plan. The wealthy and Businesses do potentially have such flexibility, but deciding whether to take advantage of their opportunities is a question that requires an in-depth analysis of their particular circumstances by expert accountants and lawyers.
A creative tax plan may be challenged, but a creative and highly successful plan (i.e., one that defers or eliminates a lot of taxes) will be challenged. A safe rule of thumb is 'if you can't afford - or don't want - to fight about it, don't do it.'
This is not to say that all potential problems with CRA are self-created - they aren't.
In R. v. Roberts & Viccars, [1998] B.C.J. No. 3184 (Prov. Ct.) the court stayed charges under 24(1) of the Charter, against the accused charged with tax evasion and fraud. The court found that, "the abuses in his case are varied and blatant and span the investigation ? what [the CRA officer] did, aided and abetted by his supervisor?" showed "distain for the Charter."
In R. v. Saplys [1999] O.J. No. 393 (Ont. Gen. Div.) granted a stay when the investigation proved to be so unfair as to
收藏至：
