Well, the dog days of summer are upon us once again. Every one is on
vacation. And those who aren't, well, they have baseballs and suntans
to catch. Much more preferable pursuits then sitting in front of a
computer and reading the latest tax tales to say the least. So, as a
result, over the next three weeks, we're going to rerun some of the
years most popular and talked about tax tales!

Couple seeking answers were given five-year runaround by Canada
Revenue

By PAUL WALDIE

All Roger and Anita Johnston wanted was a straight answer from the
Canada Revenue Agency about a reassessment of their taxes. They made
12 calls to the CRA's toll-free information line and spoke to 12
separate people. Each one gave them different and often conflicting
information. Fed up, they took their case to the Tax Court of Canada
and told Mr. Justice Ronald Bell about their experience.

"He ripped a strip off them," Mr. Johnston, 40, said from the family's
home in Murray Harbour North in eastern Prince Edward Island. "He
said, 'After having to call 12 times, I'd be disgusted, too.' " The
judge was so infuriated he wants the agency to drop all interest
charges assessed against the Johnstons and he told the couple, in
court, that he plans to make his views about the lousy service known
to the CRA.

The saga started approximately five years ago, when Ms. Johnston, 40,
took over the family's taxes after a friend who used to do the books
decided to retire. At the time, the Johnstons had a small-engine
repair business and they were starting a craft venture, making wooden
toys and planters. Ms. Johnston had done the family's personal taxes
for years, but she wasn't up to speed on business tax. Her friend
showed her how to use a computer software program that had been
approved by the CRA.

Shortly after the 2002 tax season, the Johnstons were assessed on
their 2001 and 2002 taxes. The CRA disallowed a series of business
expenses and said the couple owed about $3,500 in taxes, plus
interest. Ms. Johnston had no idea where she had gone wrong, so she
called the 1-800 number for help. At first, she tried to follow
instructions given by
CRA officials who answered the telephone. When she called back for
more information, each official she spoke with gave different
suggestions and even criticized the information she had received from
the others.

Totally confused, Ms. Johnston asked her husband to try his hand.
"Every time we called up we'd get Ken or Bill or Frank. We'd never get
the same person," he said. After months of trying to get a straight
answer, the couple filed an appeal of the assessment.

Ms. Johnston eventually figured out where she had gone wrong through
the assessment process and she acknowledged that the couple owed a
good portion of the $3,500. However, they wanted an opportunity to
express their views about the 1-800 number and they decided to take
their case to the Tax Court.

The couple couldn't afford a lawyer, so it was up to Ms. Johnston to
explain to Judge Bell what had happened. "It was stressful," she
recalled in an interview. "We didn't know what we were getting into."
After some aggressive questioning during the hearing by a lawyer
representing the CRA, Judge Bell stepped in and admonished the agency
for its handling of the case. "He said he would be making his views
known to them," Ms. Johnston said.

In a written ruling released last week, the judge outlined the
couple's problems with the information line and noted that Ms.
Johnston was not challenging the reassessment. "I am writing these
brief reasons for judgment in order to recommend highly, in the
aggravating
circumstances, that the Minister of National Revenue waive any
interest that otherwise would be payable on the tax owing under the
reassessment," Judge Bell wrote.

Justice Department lawyers who represented the CRA declined to
comment.

Jacqueline Couture, a CRA spokeswoman, said the agency does not
comment on individual cases. However, she said the agency's toll-free
lines receive about 20 million calls a year. The officials who manage
the lines are trained and monitored, she added, and they are not
required to give their surnames.

The Johnstons are still waiting to hear exactly how much they have to
pay. Although they didn't incur any legal fees, the fight caused them
to drop the craft business. They've also dropped the engine-repair
business and they are now getting by on employment insurance and
whatever Mr. Johnston can earn cutting grass around the countryside
for the provincial government.

"It's a lot of money for us to pay and we don't know if they are going
to want it all at once," said Ms. Johnston, who estimated the family's
income at less than $20,000 annually. Mr. Johnston said they fought
the issue on principle. "These people are supposed to be
professionals. They very seriously screwed up and they tried to blame
it on us."

When asked what advice he would give other Canadians who use the CRA
information lines, Mr. Johnston laughed and replied: "Be damn careful.
Be damn careful."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
Miss a Tax Tale Miss a lot!
Click the link for the new, updated and revised CCRA SOTW index!

http://groups.google.ca/group/can.taxes/browse_thread/thread/3be220af...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------