Canadian tidbits

WHATFG

Well-Known Member
Suzanne Côté waged $200,000 tax battle over clothes with Quebec tax agency

MONTREAL — The newest member of the Supreme Court of Canada is a corporate law expert, but a lengthy fight to be able to deduct more than $200,000 in clothing and “personal care” expenses from her annual earnings has given her a unique window into the tax system.

RELATED STORIES
Toronto Star's View: Harper...Suzanne Côté: 5 things about...
Madame Justice Suzanne Côté battled five years with Revenu Québec, the provincial tax agency, after she claimed annual expenses of $50,000 to buy work clothes for each of three years from 2004 to 2006. During that same period, the top flight lawyer with the Montreal firm Strikeman Elliott claimed more than $25,000 in expenses related to personal care, as well as other miscellaneous items.

Court documents show that Côté made claims for tax deductions totalling $204,685 over those three years and that those claims were rejected by the Quebec tax agency. The documents were obtained by the Journal de Montréal, which first reported on their existence Wednesday. The newspaper provided those documents to the Star.

The lawyer with 34 years’ experience took Revenu Québec to court in 2009 to have its ruling overturned. In a May 2009 court filing, she argued that her job required her to “incur various expenses for the purchase of clothing and uniforms to be used at the office, in court and during professional activities.”

She denied that the claims were for personal clothing and argued that they were “reasonable.”

“The expenses are related to the running of a business by the claimant and were incurred to earn a salary,” she argued in her claim.

Revenu Québec noted in a statement of defence that it began auditing Côté’s expense claims in 2007 and that she refused on four separate occasions to provide receipts or other documents that would justify her claims.

The documents that tax auditors were seeking were eventually filed as exhibits in the court case, but were removed from the public court file when the two sides reached an out-of-court settlement on Sept. 13, 2012. That settlement makes it impossible to know what types of clothing items or personal care services Côté claimed as work-related expenses, what final agreement was reached between Côté and the Quebec government, or how much she eventually paid in taxes.

A spokesperson for the Supreme Court of Canada said that Côté had declined an interview request on the matter. But she got the backing of the Prime Minister’s Office on Wednesday.

“The matters between Justice Côté and Revenu Québec were resolved years ago,” said spokesman Carl Vallée.

Dick Pound, a Montreal tax lawyer who is perhaps better known as the former president of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), said disagreements over allowable tax deductions for work clothing have a long history stretching back to jazz pianist Oscar Peterson, who tried to deduct the cost of his ubiquitous dinner jackets as a work-related expense.

Plainclothes police officers, however, were allowed to deduct the costs of a specially tailored suit jacket to accommodate weapons carried in a shoulder holster, Pound said.

“There’s been an expansion of the concept of what you have to do as a lawyer, as an RCMP officer or an entertainer to earn your living,” he said. “There’s a range of honest disagreement that is entirely normal in tax matters. In my experience, 95 per cent of all disagreements with taxation authorities end up being settled. Sensible people come to sensible conclusions.”

Côté was named to the top court last month by the Conservative government after the retirement of Justice Louis LeBel.

Vallée said Côté is one of the most experienced litigators in the country and that her appointment was supported by the Quebec government, members of the province’s legal community and the Canadian Bar Association among others.

Then there's this...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anti-marijuana-ad-s-dubious-claim-a-scary-hit-with-parents-1.2876654


Facebook

Twitter

Reddit

Google

Share

Email
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
Hmm..if it is a legit tax deduction for one...it is for all. Nothing but the finest gum boots and mack jackets for this guy from now on! Seriously though, our federal public servants are entitled to their entitlements. About the anti-marijuana ad...substitute marijuana with alcohol or pills...the same risks are there multiplied by thousands, yet where are the parents screaming for the prohibition of these proven killers?
 

torontoke

Well-Known Member
Wow can u imagine what her income was over those couple years if 250,000 were her clothe deductions?
No wonder they hired her its like the largest internet companies hiring the hackers that kick their asses.
In my opinion she should have been fired not promoted. If someone is that out to lunch to claim that much as normal spending on work clothes shes too out of touch to be in a position of authority making judgements on us regular folks.
 

GrowRock

Well-Known Member
Wow can u imagine what her income was over those couple years if 250,000 were her clothe deductions?
No wonder they hired her its like the largest internet companies hiring the hackers that kick their asses.
In my opinion she should have been fired not promoted. If someone is that out to lunch to claim that much as normal spending on work clothes shes too out of touch to be in a position of authority making judgements on us regular folks.


You nailed. Having the wealthy elite deciding everything for everyone is as wrong as this stupid bitch spending $250 000 on cloths.

Peace
 

torontoke

Well-Known Member
The saddest part to me is that we as the people footing that bill have no say and will be fukt over by this type of thinking for decades by these people.
Not one person involved in canadian politics has common sense. They are all the privileged and out of touch canadians.
 

GrowRock

Well-Known Member
Well I got thinking and if we have to have minorities (race religion)in government police etc why the fuck should they not take people from all parts of the economic scale to have a fair representation of the Canadain people???Example someone who actually comes from the middle lower class walk of life and didn't grow up with a silver spoon in there mouth! To think that the 10% of the population that are well off are represented and the rest of us are left with what is best for the rich!! Then we wouldn't even of had to waste all of our tax dollars on some rich bitch lawyer abusing the system for a quarter of a million for fucking cloths.

Peace
 

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
poor people can't afford to get into politics...it costs money & then when you get in, the gravy train starts. EXPENSE ACCOUNT!!
 

cannadan

Well-Known Member
I guess just prove you paid for them and to who.....
should be pretty simple.....back everything up with receipts....RIGHT
 
Top