Jurisprudence : l’impôt et la fabrication de documents font un mélange explosif

By Robert Robillard - 11 May 2016

On connaît tous le pêcheur dont les petits poissons ont le don de se transformer en espadons, le temps d’une histoire…

Dans Dicosmo v. The Queen, 2015 TCC 325 (CanLII), disponible ici en anglais uniquement, le demandeur, un particulier, se voit refuser certaines dépenses d’entreprise au motif que celles-ci n’ont pas servi à générer un revenu d’entreprise.

Dans cette affaire, le demandeur soutient sa version des faits principalement par un exposé oral, plutôt que des pièces justificatives.

Plus surprenant, le demandeur produit à la Cour une pièce documentaire, en apparence falsifiée, pour soutenir ses dires!

La cour explique en anglais :

“[21] I would also comment that a document that was introduced into evidence by Mr. DiCosmo as the invoice supporting the representation fee paid to Jones and Associates was later admitted by Mr. Jones to be an “incorrect” invoice after a different invoice with the same date was introduced by the Crown on cross-examination.

[22] Mr. Jones suggested in his testimony that the document originally introduced was an administrative error. Although this is possible, it seems highly unlikely. It is more likely that the “incorrect” document was fabricated to support the tax deduction.

[23] There are two reasons for this conclusion. First, the document which is admitted to be incorrect purports to be an invoice for investment advice, and accordingly appears to be an attempt to support the deduction claimed in the tax return for a representation fee. The document that Mr. DiCosmo submits is the true invoice is for general tax services. I do not believe that this is an administrative error, as suggested by Mr. Jones. The incorrect invoice appears to have been created to mislead as to the nature of the services provided. In addition, it appears that the incorrect document was prepared subsequently because the total amount in both invoices is the same except that the incorrect document adds GST to an already GST-included total in the actual invoice. In other words, it appears that the incorrect document was prepared subsequently based on the amount owing in the actual invoice. The circumstances strongly suggest that the incorrect document was intended to mislead.

[24] The introduction into evidence of what appears to be a false document does not assist Mr. DiCosmo in this appeal because his appeal relies to a great extent on the reliability of his own testimony and that of Mr. Jones.”

Cette possible fausse pièce documentaire n’est pas formellement réprimandée par la Cour.

Mais c’est évidemment une stratégie à proscrire en vérification fiscale et tout autant en Cour canadienne de l’impôt!