Federal income tax legislation

$20.00 $15.00

The paper talks about the director of a corporation which failed will owing workers unpaid wages, and was to be held responsible for the failure of the corporate paying taxes.



Ms. Jackson is personally responsible in that she was the Director when the corporation failed while owing workers unpaid wages. She can also be held personally responsible for branches of employment standards legislation, as well as workers’ compensation occupation health and safety legislation in place in particular jurisdiction. Ms. Jackson is also personally obligated if back taxes are left unpaid, this is under federal income tax legislation, she should not have found herself in the situation of decision making which is so ruinous. Under environmental legislation Ms. Jackson as a Director of the Huge oil company is responsible for the damages caused by the company to the environment therefore as the director her personal liability is on unexpected spills and the cost of cleanup………………..

Ms. Jackson may be imposed with individual liability as a Director for offence under consumer legislation, the federal competition Act, security legislation and provincial human rights code. From a previous case file “When Are Directors Liable for Unpaid Taxes? Canada v. Buckingham”, Buckingham was the largest shareholder of a corporation and chair of the board of directors. He was assessed for taxes, penalties, and interest owed by the corporation under the Excise Tax Act………………

Buckingham denied liability on the grounds that he “exercised the degree of care, diligence and skill to prevent the failure that a reasonably prudent person would have exercise in comparable circumstances”. The Court held that the standard of care, diligence, and skill required is an objective standard. This is a higher standard than that involving the director’s own personal skills, knowledge, abilities, and capacities………………

The Court held that Buckingham had not directed his effort towards the avoidance of failures to remit the taxes owed. He was instead focused on continuing to operate the business and on selling assets so that the sale produces could be used to satisfy creditors, including the Crown. Ms. Jackson should have avoided the liability if she could have shown that she acted with “due diligence.”……………………………….