Kim G C Moody’s Musings – 1-1-1 Newsletter For May 14, 2025
One Comment About Taxation – The Liberal Government is Planning for Increased Tax Penalties?
Have you ever been assessed a penalty or interest amount on your personal tax return or a corporate tax return that you are responsible for? Not fun, eh? Penalties are used by countries around the world as a carrot-and-stick approach in order to encourage behaviour that is in line with expectations. Interest is the price you pay for not paying your taxes on time.
Penalties are generally broken down into two types: civil and criminal. The latter is reserved, of course, for criminal behaviour. If you purposely didn’t report your income and / or file your tax returns, well, that is tax evasion and criminal. The penalties are significant and can include jail time.
Civil penalties are administrative in nature and can encompass a wide variety of circumstances including penalties for late filing, underreporting your income, not reporting certain forms (like foreign assets), etc.
Lately, there has been a wide variety of new civil penalties introduced into our tax statute. For example, there are now broad and complex new mandatory disclosure rules that require taxpayers to proactively disclose certain transactions. Failure to comply with these new disclosure rules comes with significant penalties, in some cases $100,000 or more. In addition, there are significant new penalties to the extent the general anti-avoidance rule has applied to one or more of your transactions and you have not proactively disclosed such transactions to the Canada Revenue Agency.
In general, one can understand the need for penalties in income tax statutes. Without them, one might simply not comply with a requirement whereas another person complies. How would that be fair? Accordingly, the primary intent of penalties is to encourage compliance with tax law, not to increase overall government revenues. A government that budgets material amounts for penalties as a recurring revenue stream contradicts that intent because it implies an expectation or reliance on taxpayer failure.
In Canada, our overall tax compliance rate is high. Our country’s “on-time filing rate” (the share of expected tax returns filed by the due date) is above average as compared to other OECD member countries and compares well to G7 members. In addition, Canada’s “on-time payment rate” (the share of taxpayers who have paid their tax amounts by the payment due dates) is also very comparable to peer countries.
While the above comparisons don’t paint the whole picture (since civil penalties can encompass a whole variety of penalties, not just penalties for late filing and late payment amounts), it is a decent snapshot of the fact that Canada is not a nation that is rife with non-compliance.
For the 2024 fiscal year, the CRA reported collecting approximately $14.2 billion in interest, penalties, and other revenues. This represents a significant increase from the $10.6 billion collected in the previous fiscal year and is largely attributed to higher prescribed interest rates and increased arrears interest. As interest rates move down, one would expect these amounts to decrease as well.
Given the above, it caught my attention during the recent election campaign that the Liberal Party was budgeting for increased income tax penalties to fund some of its initiatives. Starting next year (in other words, there is nothing budgeted for the current year), the Liberal Party stated that it is expecting its government to collect $3.75 billion in new penalties over the following three years. No details were provided on the computation of these estimated new amounts. Such amounts are part of the $51.75 billion that it expects to raise in overall new revenues over the next 4 years. Accordingly, the increased penalties represent 7.2% of the new expected revenues. Not an insignificant amount!
Reflect on the above for two seconds. What is it telling you? Well, for me, it could mean a number of things. However, to start, it is telling that there are no increased penalties budgeted for the current year. Why? Is the government, through the CRA, only going to start assessing new penalties next year? Is there an obvious lag with the “new” penalties that have been introduced into law vs collection? Not sure but the estimate for nil seems silly.
Second, the increase in penalties sends a strong contradictory message from what the policy intent of penalties should be. As mentioned above, if penalties are used as a recurring budgetary item, then the governing Liberal Party is basically budgeting for taxpayer failure. Is it finally admitting that our tax statutes are too complex? If so, there is a good solution for that being tax reform. Unfortunately, however, the Liberals only seem interested in a so-called “expert review” of the corporate tax system and not an overall review of our entire tax system.
Third, does it mean that the CRA will become even more aggressive than they already are? Haven’t had an audit lately? Well, count your lucky stars. Unfortunately, the CRA’s massive increase in headcount has not improved audit quality and has resulted in frustrating overall “services”.
Fourth, in my opinion, if a government needs to count on billions in new revenue from penalties, such budgeting is reflective of underlying fiscal pressures, not genuine tax concerns. It is fiscally short-sighted and ethically questionable especially if the penalties are applied as negotiating tactics on audits.
While the devil is in the details and we’ll have to wait to see if the Liberals’ first budget post-election is reflective of the above proposal, such a “plan” laid out in the Liberals’ plan appears reckless.
To summarize, our federal government is addicted to deficit spending and plans to finance some of that spending by betting on Canadians failing to navigate a byzantine tax system they themselves keep expanding. When penalties become an increasing and recurring line item in your fiscal framework, you’re not managing a tax system—you’re running a shakedown.
To quote AC/DC: “If you want blood—you’ve got it.” Apparently, so do the Liberals. And they’re coming for yours, one penalty at a time. Dirty deeds, done expensively.
One Comment About Leadership – Leaders, How Do You Handle Your Pet Peeves?
Do you have pet peeves? I sure do.
People using speakerphone in public. Headphone zombies oblivious to the world around them. Camera-off lurkers on Zoom calls. And one of the worst—those who blindly follow their tribe, like political partisans, never questioning or thinking critically.
I could go on. But I won’t.
The truth is that a lot of my pet peeves boil down to my own character flaws—mostly impatience. Over the years, I’ve tried to work on that. Whether or not I’ve improved is debatable. I think I have. My wife… disagrees. Haha!
But here’s the real point: one of the marks of a good leader is how they handle their pet peeves. Do you let them visibly frustrate you? Do you snap? Do you make others feel small?
You can absolutely ask someone to use headphones instead of blaring their call to the world. That’s fine. But yelling at them like a lunatic? That’s not leadership. That’s just bad behaviour.
Leaders, your ability to manage small annoyances with grace—especially when they grate on you—says a lot about your character. In those moments, your true leadership shows.
So…how do you handle your pet peeves?
One Comment About Economics – Will Mark Carney’s “New” Government Be Unifying?
I recently had a robust conversation with a sharp group of business leaders in Calgary, AB. One of the more uncomfortable topics we discussed was the growing sentiment in Alberta around separation from Canada. It’s no longer just the political fringes pushing this; it’s moderates now seriously considering it.
Some observers brush it off with the usual line: “Alberta wouldn’t survive on its own, it would be landlocked” or “It would be worse for the province and for the country.” That misses the point. You don’t save a crumbling relationship by saying divorce is painful. Anyone who’s been married knows that doesn’t work. If there’s any hope of staying together, you have to acknowledge what’s broken and make real efforts to fix it.
Enter new Prime Minister Mark Carney. While I’ve been critical of his economic ideology and I stand by that, he now has a serious opportunity in front of him: address these fractures head-on, listen to AlbertaPremier Danielle Smith’s demands, and actually show a willingness to fix what’s broken in the relationship between Alberta and the rest of the country. That would be leadership.
We’ll see if he’s up to the task. Our country could certainly use unifying leadership at this time rather than constantly trying to use fear (“Trump, Trump, Trump;” / “crisis of a lifetime!”) or lame slogans (“Elbows Up!”….oh, brother, that has to be one of the lamest and low IQ rallying cries I’ve ever heard) to pacify a voter base.
Instead, it’s time for our political leaders to do what’s in the best interest of our country.
Bonus Comment – Quote From Me – About Leaders and Their Pet Peeves
“The best leaders don’t let their pet peeves become public policy.”
Hope you enjoyed this edition of 1-1-1…please sign up for my mailing list today.