Canada Revenue Agency investigating former players Darcy Tucker & Shayne Corson for tax 'sham'

[dalewood12]

Toronto Star: They made millions playing for the Maple Leafs. The CRA alleges they participated in a ‘sham’ to skirt paying their fair share of taxes

Maple Leafs winger Darcy Tucker fed the puck to Shayne Corson, who snuck a shot past the goalie to help seal a 6-3 win over the Phoenix Coyotes.

The men were more than just teammates; they were brothers-in-law and confidants who formed a pair that fellow Leafs called Brother Love, and their connection ran deep. A day before that Dec. 11, 2001 game, Tucker wired $32,000 to an account with a U.K. brokerage and joined Corson in investing in the risky world of foreign currency trading.

Their gambit scuffled in the early years, with Tucker and Corson each declaring millions of dollars in business losses.

But that was part of the plan, according to the Canada Revenue Agency.

The high-profile players’ investments were actually a tax sham designed to minimize the CRA’s cut of the millions they made from their NHL salaries, the tax agency alleges.

...

In court filings, Tucker and Corson deny the CRA’s allegations, saying the trades were real and were legitimately done with the intention to make money through currency speculation. Both men say their currency trading yielded a profit in subsequent years, and the income was reported and taxed.

Click to read more...

 

[Pandemonia]

Toronto Star: They made millions playing for the Maple Leafs. The CRA alleges they participated in a ‘sham’ to skirt paying their fair share of taxes

Juicy stuff! Can Canada claim tax arreas from 2 decades ago?

 

[gstommylee]

Juicy stuff! Can Canada claim tax arreas from 2 decades ago?

That depends on Canadian law.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Juicy stuff! Can Canada claim tax arreas from 2 decades ago?

The short answer is, if the CRA believes that the taxpayer misrepresented their tax position (intentionally or not), they can go back farther than the statute of limitations normally would allow.

I personally haven't seen 19 years in practice but it's theoretically possible if the CRA thinks they misrepresented the facts. This will likely play out in the courts.

 

[decma]

The short answer is, if the CRA believes that the taxpayer misrepresented their tax position (intentionally or not), they can go back farther than the statute of limitations normally would allow.

I personally haven't seen 19 years in practice but it's theoretically possible if the CRA thinks they misrepresented the facts. This will likely play out in the courts.

The CRA took a beating in the Cameco decision, including on the sham transaction issue.
Lack of material misreprentations and the presence of a bona fide business purpose were key elements in that decision.

Anyone know if the Tax Court has addressed the sham transaction issue since?

 

[robertocarlos]

You feel shame and you go to the jail for a few years.