CRA slammed for 'reprehensible and malicious' prosecution of B.C. couple
 

If you've ever been harassed by the CRA here's a bit of payback.

CRA slammed for 'reprehensible and malicious' prosecution of B.C. couple - British Columbia - CBC News
A B.C. Supreme Court judge has slammed the Canada Revenue Agency for suppressing and misstating evidence in its zeal to prosecute a Vancouver Island couple for tax evasion.

In a blistering 70-page ruling, Justice Robert Punnett ordered the CRA to pay Tony and Helen Samaroo nearly $1.7 million in damages for malicious prosecution of a deeply flawed case that ruined their reputations.

"A government agency maliciously used the criminal justice system to pursue the plaintiffs, and its wrongful conduct continued into the criminal trial itself. The CRA was seeking substantial terms of imprisonment and significant penalties. The manner in which the prosecution was initiated and carried out was egregious. It must be denounced," Punnett wrote.

"It affected the reputations of the plaintiffs, their professional lives and their family lives. It involved the concealment of exculpatory evidence. It involved the power imbalance of the state over the individual. It violated fundamental rights and was highly reprehensible."

The damages include nearly $348,000 for the legal fees the Samaroos spent to defend themselves in the 2011 provincial trial which ended in their acquittal.

They also include $300,000 for aggravated damages to each of them and $750,000 in punitive damages against the CRA.

The couple, who were both immigrants to Canada, operated a restaurant, nightclub and motel in Nanaimo.

The CRA, which has 30 days to appeal, did not return calls for comment.

The judgment describes a tax evasion case which began in 2006 with a tip. During the subsequent audit, the CRA determined that substantial cash deposits had been made to the Samaroos' business accounts.

The Samaroos claimed they had been transferring old $100 and $50 bills — from a safety deposit box full of three decades' worth of savings — into the bank because they were afraid financial institutions would no longer accept the old currency.

But investigators rejected that explanation.

They believed the couple was dodging tax by failing to report income from the restaurant.

'Argumentative, evasive, inflexible'

The investigation led to 21 charges for tax evasion. The CRA alleged the Samaroos had skimmed $1.7 million from their restaurant.

But Punnett faults CRA investigator Keith Kendal for putting forward a final report for charge approval without carrying out investigatory steps requested by a Crown prosecutor and, in doing so, providing "incomplete and erroneous information."

"As a witness, I found Mr. Kendal to be argumentative, evasive, inflexible and reluctant to concede what clearly should have been conceded. He wrote the Prosecution Report as an advocate, not an investigator," Punnett wrote.

"His clear intent was to see that criminal charges were laid. The presumption of innocence appeared to be meaningless to him. The manner in which he approached the evidence was not objective. He had his theory and he then sought to prove it."

The judge noted that Kendal testified he still believes the Samaroos are guilty of tax evasion, "and would, if given the chance, prosecute them again on the same theory and the same evidentiary basis."

'Unprofessional glee'

Punnett said the case suggested "an unfortunate culture within the CRA."

He pointed to a primary report which cited the fact the agency hadn't prosecuted a restaurant or nightclub in Nanaimo as rationale to go ahead with the charges.

He also highlighted an email exchange in which a CRA investigative team leader pointed to press coverage by saying: "Front page of Wednesday's Nanaimo Daily News. I can't wait to read the edition after the guilty verdict."

And, in another email, Punnett noted, the same team leader joked: "Doesn't a guilty verdict call for a guillotine?"

"Here, the CRA employees looked forward with unprofessional glee to the plaintiffs' anticipated conviction and sentencing and their resulting ruination," Punnett wrote.

"It is appalling that the incarceration of the plaintiffs would be joked about."

'High-handed, reprehensible and malicious'

The Samaroos testified about the impact of the case, as did their grown son and daughter.

The couple no longer live together and Tony Samaroo said he drinks and smokes more. He claimed that he "lost his spirit and his strength" in the face of the charges.

Helen Samaroo testified that "her life was turned upside down." She felt others looked at her with suspicion and she felt embarrassed to go to the restaurant. She claimed she had a breakdown after the acquittal.

Their daughter, Tricia Miller, said she withdrew from people and "stopped using the surname Samaroo because of its association with the criminal charges."

According to the judgment, the CRA and Kendal do not acknowledge their wrongdoing or any violation of professional standards. They expressed no apology and were without remorse.

Punnett admitted that no amount of punitive damages would cause the CRA financial hardship. But he said the facts of the case deserved rebuke.

"The CRA is vicariously liable for the conduct of Mr. Kendal and its employees," he wrote. "Its conduct in this case was high-handed, reprehensible and malicious."

"Cash Only" places.

I wonder which motel they owned, there were a few that I know of there where a credit card isn't needed to stay that will accept cash deposits. I 100% always think those places don't record shit when you pay cash.

Half of the restaurants in Richmond. Audit them too for tax evasion.

Till drawer always open. Cash paid and change given with no receipt. "No debit" signs with a Cash machine near the door. Yup totally legit business lol

Berz out.

Not just restaurant like 99% of Chinese owned restaurant and business.

i can't stand seeing "slammed" in an article title
i swear it's like the only adjective click bait writers know.

It's the MGM restaurant and the hotel attached to it. That place has been around forever.

Cash only or not, the CRA has a duty to follow procedural justice. In particular, they need to operate on the innocent until proven guilty model because that is the foundation upon which our society is built. Unfortunately, if anyone has ever dealt with the CRA, you know they don't really operate on that philosophy. The moment they get in touch with you, they are totally like "you are guilty until you can prove your own innoncence."

They can make your life hell for sure. I know someone who's worked there a long time, he once had an issue with a Pizza Shop. He got pissed and put them at the top of the list for an audit, turns out they owed some back taxes and 6 months later they are out of business CRA froze all there assets. Not to say it wouldn't have happened eventually anyway but pissing off one person who works at CRA expedited the process.

It's a good gig if you can get it, work 25 years and retire with a full pension. Get in your early 20's and you can retire and start a new career in your late 40's.

I was under the impression if you retire before 55 you get penalized or something. My brother used to work there, I could have understood wrong though.

It's some complicated formula that they used based on age and years of service, and I think the full pension requirement is usually 35 yrs of service, not 25. I think the typical no penalty pension age is usually closer to 60. If you want to get out by 55 with a full pension, you really have to start no later than when you are 20 yrs old.

35 years of service to get 80% average of your top 5 year wage

Am work CRA

Be honest with us Manic. It's you, isn't it?

:fullofwin::fullofwin::fullofwin:

Actually its 70%

Those of us who deal with the CRA on a daily basis know that they are judge, jury, and executioner.

kinda shitty situation. you know damn well the place is doing cash sales, and their excuse is a terrible one too. you know damn well the PEOPLE that work for CRA know they're doing cash sales, and are confident they're going to catch them. we all hate the CRA and we all hate audits, but the people working for CRA are people, and them catching someone, is them being happy they won something at their job like landing a big contract, or making a big sale, etc.

make no mistake, CRA sucks and can be a pain in the ass for legit businesses, but the people running this business are the kind of people who SHOULD be getting caught. and they got off because the people working for CRA were so excited about it.

I wish but my brother is an accountant and makes us pay all the taxes.

I heard an urban myth (long time ago) that if the investigation leads to a conviction, the people working the case gets a 10% cut of the penalty. I think they work for people that call in tips too.

If so maybe that's why they want to assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent?

Not being brainwashed, the reality of the fact is Canadian monies are used for a one world government with isreal as its capital.
Any person with common sense should agree that keeping money circulated in our own communities is the thing to do rather then declare tax and fund the Jihadi Johns of the world half way around the globe.
https://www.revscene.net/forums/7055...unds-isis.html

CRA has gone downhill since the Liberals took over and Trudeau appointed Lebouthillier as his Minister. Very bad processing delays, processing screw ups, they no longer give taxpayers the benefit of the doubt, and not to mention they recently laid off a ton of staff.

They released a folio stating that they wanted employees who received employee discounts such as half off burgers or discounted clothing to pay tax on the value of the benefit. After a ton of backlash from the media, they retracted the folio.

Agreed.
I've been seeing tax implications change the corporate world for a decade already. A large communications company based out of Calgary has been forcing their employees to pay tax on any gifts they're given since the mid 2000's. Depending on who you're dealing with, I've had people decline a box of donuts because they didn't want to have to deal with the paperwork. It's absolute insanity in the corporate world.