Précis: Mr. Dingman got involved in a “leased employee” scheme under which he assigned all of his income from services to Dannea Business Services Inc. (“Dannea”). Dannea maintained an account from which Mr. Dingman was able to draw the funds (less a 7% commission). Mr. Dingman reported no income from employment or business income in the years under appeal. CRA included the amounts paid to Dannea in his income and imposed gross negligence penalties. The Tax Court upheld CRA’s reassessments and dismissed Mr. Dingman’s appeal with costs of roughly $5,000.
Dingman v. R. – TCC: Court rejects “leased employee” scheme as shamPlus >