In Robillard v R, 2024 TCC 90, the taxpayer-appellant, based on a decision of the Alberta District Court from 1974, argued that he was not required to produce documents to the CRA under sections 231.1 and 231.2. The Tax Court responded as follows:
[18] As a general proposition, it is important to appreciate that the consequences flowing from a taxpayer’s refusal to provide further supporting documentation for amounts claimed in a tax return, is that the reassessment will likely be confirmed by the Minister, as was done in this instance, leading to this appeal.
[19] Furthermore, a taxpayer’s refusal to provide documents during the audit stage does not obviate the necessity of doing so at the hearing of the appeal where the taxpayer has the burden of establishing a prima facie case and demolishing the Minister’s assumptions as established in Hickson Motors, cited above.
[20] I conclude that this position has no merit and should be rejected.
It seems to me the Court could have gone further and confirmed the obvious, which is that, on the clear wording of the sections in question, the taxpayer did have an obligation to produce relevant documents as requested by the CRA.
