McCracken v. Canada

McCracken v. Canada

Applying a contextual reasonableness standard, the Court found the CRA's second-level decision was within the range of reasonable outcomes: the Agency afforded opportunity to supplement the disclosure, the applicant could have reconstructed income from bank records, and the completeness requirement of the VDP was not met, therefore denial of relief was reasonable.

Citation
2009 FC 1189
Parties
Applicant: Craig McCracken; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Decision (judgment)
Outcome
Application dismissed; No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Voluntary Disclosures Program, Penalty and Interest Relief, Discretionary Relief, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Tax Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Voluntary Disclosures Program Penalty and Interest Relief Discretionary Relief Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig McCracken

Applicant

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Decision (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Canada Revenue Agency erred in denying interest and penalty relief under the Voluntary Disclosures Program (VDP)
  2. 2 Whether the correct version of the VDP policy applied to the initial no-name disclosure
  3. 3 Standard of review applicable to the CRA decision (reasonableness v correctness)

Ratio Decidendi

Applying a contextual reasonableness standard, the Court found the CRA's second-level decision was within the range of reasonable outcomes: the Agency afforded opportunity to supplement the disclosure, the applicant could have reconstructed income from bank records, and the completeness requirement of the VDP was not met, therefore denial of relief was reasonable.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed
  • No Order as to costs