R. v. Crischuk, 2010 DTC 5138 [at at 7178], 2010 BCSC 1165, aff'd 2010 DTC 5141 [at 7197], 2010 BCCA 391

The defendant, an accountant, filed a false tax return on behalf of another taxpayer, which deducted the taxpayer's entire income, about $48,000, as employment expenses on the basis that the taxpayer was employing himself. In addition to a jail sentence, the trial judge imposed a fine equaling 100% of the amount of the tax the defendant sought to evade. The fine in s. 239(1)(f) has two purposes - to protect the public purse, and to disgorge profits. Only the first purpose was engaged in this case. The defendant's profits were small - only what he charged the other taxpayer. Barrow J. reduced the fine to the minimum 50% of the tax evaded.

The defendant, an accountant, filed a false tax return on behalf of another taxpayer, which deducted the taxpayer's entire income, about $48,000, as employment expenses on the basis that the taxpayer was employing himself. At issue was sentencing.

Barrow J. identified several aggravating factors in the defendant's conduct. The defendant completely lacked remorse, and continued to insist that Canadian income tax was somehow invalid. He appeared to be engaged in a "campaign" to resist the payment of income tax. He had charged the taxpayer for his preposterous tax advice. In advising the taxpayer that the scheme was proper and legal, he also committed a breach of trust.

Barrow J. also identified some mitigating factors. The amount involved, the sophistication of the scheme, and the number of taxpayers involved were all low. Barrow J. reduced taxpayer's one-year sentence to six months.

The fine in s. 239(1)(f) has two purposes - to protect the public purse, and to disgorge profits. Only the first purpose was engaged in this case. The defendant's profits were small - only what he charged the other taxpayer. Barrow J. reduced the fine to the minimum 50% of the tax that was sought to be evaded.