An Alberta widow will be allowed to keep tens of thousands of dollars her late husband left to her in retirement savings after winning a years-long court battle against the Canada Revenue Agency.

The ruling Tuesday said Marlene Enns is exempt from a clause in Canadian tax law that gives the tax agency power to collect unpaid tax debts from spouses or common-law partners in certain cases because, under law, her marriage ended the moment her husband died.

The appeal court ruling settles a question that for years did not have a clear answer, after other cases involving widows in the Tax Court of Canada ended with conflicting answers: what should the definition of “spouse” be in cases like the one involving Enns.

  • HellsBelleOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Classic CRA bullshit – go after a widow who inherited her husband’s RRSP but don’t even bother all the rich tax evaders in the Panama Papers.

    • xmunk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      I personally disagree with this decision. I know there are bigger fish to fry but if the husband owed this much in back taxes and had just been refusing to pay them then why shouldn’t the government recover the lost revenue?

      This feels ripe for abuse by rich assholes. Evade taxes all your life to set up your inheritor with a big bag of money and a clean slate.

      • HellsBelleOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        The ruling Tuesday said Marlene Enns is exempt from a clause …

        The ruling was specific to her, not for everyone else. She alone is exempt.

        • xmunk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 hours ago

          The appeal court ruling settles a question that for years did not have a clear answer, after other cases involving widows in the Tax Court of Canada ended with conflicting answers: what should the definition of “spouse” be in cases like the one involving Enns.

          That analysis (which I grant, may be incorrect) seems to imply this is answering a broader question.