This article discusses Hansen v R, 2020 TCC 102.
In our view, the Hansen decision is consistent with the four-part test established in Aridi v R, 2013 TCC 74. Mr. Hansen was aware that there was a PRE and that if a standard was not met, the sale would be subject to tax, likely on income account. He sought an accountant’s advice on his family’s specific circumstances in relation to the purchase and sale of each house and on why he and his spouse qualified, in each case, for the exemption. It was never a matter of not knowing the tax rules. It was a matter of whether the real-life circumstances fit the rules.
S Tataryn, B Katlai and A Bradord “Reassessment of Statute-Barred Taxation Years: Reasonable Care and Standards—Regina Mall Test” 22:1 Tax for the Owner-Manager (Jan 2022)
