What kinds of cases are you looking for?   
< Previous Case Next Case >

GST/HST — input tax credits to charity for cost of land

My client was an Ontario charity that carried on some activities that were exempt of GST/HST, and others that were considered “commercial activities” and subject to 13% HST.

The charity bought land near its existing operation, in order to build a larger building to expand its activities. More than 50% of the new building was to be used in its “commercial activities” (as that term is defined for GST/HST). As a result, I advised the charity that it could claim an input tax credit (ITC) to recover all of the HST it paid on buying the land; and also that it would be able to recover all of the HST it would pay on the design and construction costs.

On its 2023 GST/HST return, the charity claimed the ITC on the land purchase, as well as on architect fees for designing the new building. In the meantime, it was allowing people attending its existing building to park at the empty lot while the new construction had not yet started.

A CRA “GST Refund Integrity Auditor” audited the charity and concluded that these ITCs should be denied. He decided that, since the land was being used for free parking, and free parking supplied by a charity is an exempt supply, the charity was using the land in exempt activities and was thus not entitled to the ITCs. He also did not agree that the eventual use of the new building would be primarily in commercial activities.

When the charity got me involved in the matter, I called the auditor. He was ready to issue his assessment within the next couple of days. I asked him to hold off for a few days while I made a written submission — which he told me on the phone would make no difference, as whatever I told him would just be my view. I called his Team Leader and asked that the auditor be fair to my client and be open to receiving a written legal submission. The Team Leader agreed, and spoke to the auditor about this.

Over the course of the next 2-3 days, I worked intensively with my client. We got the architect to “colour-code” the plans for the new building, so that we could easily show which portions would be used for commercial activities, which for exempt activities and which were for supporting both kind of activities (e.g., hallways, bathrooms, stairwells). We also prepared a spreadsheet, using the architect’s calculations for each space, showing that the percentage of use in commercial activities was substantially over 50%.

I then sent the auditor and Team Leader a letter with these documents and a detailed legal analysis, demonstrating that the new building was to be used primarily in “commercial activities” and thus that full ITCs should be allowed. I also explained, using both case law and CRA publications, that the test to be applied was a test of intention rather than the actual use of the land; and that the current use for free parking was clearly not the intention the charity had when deciding to buy the land. I also showed that, even if the current use for parking was relevant, that use was primarily in support of the charity’s commercial activities

In my letter, I encouraged the auditor and Team Leader to discuss the matter with me on the phone, or to send my submission to their technical advisor or to Rulings in Ottawa if they weren’t sure of the legal result.

One day later, the auditor called my client to advise that he was accepting my letter in full and allowing all of the ITCs.

Problem solved!

(2024)