Foreign landlord fails to pay taxes, CRA goes after tenant
A Montreal tenant was audited and ordered to pay the tax he had failed to withhold on the monthly rent to his non-resident landlord
www.theglobeandmail.com
Renting anywhere in Canada? Read this
- Thread starter MacDoc
- Start date
www.theglobeandmail.com
Doesn't appear to be time limited and we never stayed more than 3 years in the same place. Nearly all were Chinese tho most rents were paid to a management company who would likely do it correctly. Our rents ranged $1200 to $3600 over 20 years....25% of that is big chunk. 
Montreal tenant forced to pay his landlord’s taxes offers advice to other renters
Tenant David Siscoe still owes more than $43,000 after being dunned by CRA for foreign landlord’s failure to pay
www.theglobeandmail.com
Relax
Well-known member
Makes sense to me. Didn't we recently ban the sale of property to foreign investors, so the government must have a way of identifying them. Why go after an innocent renter?
Dirty Frank
Well-known member
They go after the tenant because they are a easy target. We are talking Canadian government employees here they specialize in low hanging fruit due to their general incompetence and laziness.
Only if they are personally responsible for the payment. If you can foist it off on some poor schlep, then why make work for yourself?
Sorry, Mimico!
A Montreal tenant was audited and ordered to pay the tax he had failed to withhold on the monthly rent to his non-resident landlord, as required by law. As a result, he was ordered to pay six years’ worth of tax as well as the compounded interest and penalties. The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) could not collect against his overseas landlord, so the Canadian tenant was on the hook.
It sounds similar to an employer not withholding income tax. The worker gets the bill from CRA if the employer doesn't pay up. It sounds like the CRA is expecting renters to act as employers of the property owner. IE "I am paying you to provide accommodations."
The judge acknowledged the harshness of the decision but was any mercy shown by eliminating interest and penalties?
There was an ugly scene in the USA with trucking, pre deregulation.
The ICC set the rates and might set a particular load at $1,000 from point A to point B for Acme Widget. However a lot of trucking companies undercut the rates to say $800. They were OK with what they made and Acme Widget enjoyed the extra profit. Life is good.
Then a trucking company went bankrupt and the receiver realized that all the Acme Widgets hadn't paid the correct ICC rate and went after the clients for the missing amounts. The Supreme court agreed. Acme Widget had to pay the receiver the extra $200 fees X the large number of runs. Some Widget companies went bankrupt.
Then some vultures realized that it was possible to buy a trucking company and late bill their clients for the undercharges. The undercharges were worth more than they paid for the company. Liquidating the equipment was just icing on the cake after the undercharges were collected.
It sounds similar to an employer not withholding income tax. The worker gets the bill from CRA if the employer doesn't pay up. It sounds like the CRA is expecting renters to act as employers of the property owner. IE "I am paying you to provide accommodations."
The judge acknowledged the harshness of the decision but was any mercy shown by eliminating interest and penalties?
There was an ugly scene in the USA with trucking, pre deregulation.
The ICC set the rates and might set a particular load at $1,000 from point A to point B for Acme Widget. However a lot of trucking companies undercut the rates to say $800. They were OK with what they made and Acme Widget enjoyed the extra profit. Life is good.
Then a trucking company went bankrupt and the receiver realized that all the Acme Widgets hadn't paid the correct ICC rate and went after the clients for the missing amounts. The Supreme court agreed. Acme Widget had to pay the receiver the extra $200 fees X the large number of runs. Some Widget companies went bankrupt.
Then some vultures realized that it was possible to buy a trucking company and late bill their clients for the undercharges. The undercharges were worth more than they paid for the company. Liquidating the equipment was just icing on the cake after the undercharges were collected.
Last edited:
Because the CRA have indicated time and again they don’t have the resources to go after the complex tax dodgers, so they go for the easy catch…the renter in this case.
They should just put a lien on the property and keep charging until a sale happens.
It’s apparently and old (and outdated) law which should be scrapped. How is a tenant supposed to know? Should every tenant stop paying 25% of their rent and go directly to govt? How about tenants and landlords that have cash deals?
‘Hey LL, here’s 75% of the rent. I’ll keep the remaining 25% in case you forget to pay the tax to the CRA. Trust me bro.’
No need, I’m not a federal employee…those lazy bums…
No worry Mimico. Chow has ordered more equipment to help with excavation of the cross town.
My involvement with ECLRT was very short and not plagued by major construction delays.
Last edited:
