6 Charity and NPO Audit Support tax and accounting engagements in full — what the client came to us with, what we did, and what it was worth. Each one is specific to charity and npo audit support work, not a general example.
Case Study 1 · Cash and remittance control
Instalments Rebased, $75,000 Of Cash Returned To The Business — Restaurant Under a Net-Worth, Vancouver
Client: A restaurant under a net-worth audit · Where: Vancouver, British Columbia · Engagement: 10 weeks, fixed fee
Cash returned$75,000
Instalment basisCurrent year
ReviewedQuarterly
The situation
A restaurant under a net-worth audit in Vancouver, British Columbia was paying instalments calculated on a prior year that no longer reflected the business. Six years of unfiled corporate and personal returns and an active collections file was tying up $75,000 of cash.
What we did
We rebased the instalments on the current-year estimate rather than the prior-year default, and assembled the contemporaneous records, filed a structured response to each proposed adjustment with the supporting documents indexed, and had the proposal withdrawn.
The result
$75,000 of cash stayed in the business, the penalty cycle ended, and the instalment position is reviewed each quarter against actual results.
Case Study 2 · CRA review defended
$66,000 Proposed Adjustment Withdrawn In Full — Corporation Under a GST/HST, Hamilton
Client: A corporation under a GST/HST review · Where: Hamilton, Ontario · Engagement: 5 weeks, fixed fee
Adjustment withdrawn$66,000
File closed in5 weeks
Penalties assessedNone
The situation
A corporation under a GST/HST review in Hamilton, Ontario received a proposal letter opening a review of charity and npo audit support. The CRA had identified a net-worth assessment built on unexplained deposits that were actually loan proceeds and proposed an adjustment of $66,000, with 30 days to respond.
What we did
We treated the response as an evidence exercise rather than an argument. We filed the disclosure through the Voluntary Disclosures Program before contact, which removed the gross-negligence penalty entirely, then indexed every supporting document against the specific line the auditor had questioned.
The result
The proposed adjustment was withdrawn in full — all $66,000 of it. The file closed in 5 weeks with no change to the assessed amounts and no penalty.
Case Study 3 · Backlog brought current
7 Years Filed, $64,000 Removed From The Assessed Balance — Company Facing a Payroll, Burnaby
Client: A company facing a payroll trust examination · Where: Burnaby, British Columbia · Engagement: 4 weeks, fixed fee
Years filed7
Assessed balance removed$64,000
CollectionsStopped
The situation
A company facing a payroll trust examination in Burnaby, British Columbia had not filed for 7 years. The CRA had issued arbitrary assessments, and the business was carrying a director liability assessment for a corporation that had already stopped operating on top of a growing interest balance.
What we did
We started with the oldest year and worked forward so each year's closing balances fed the next. We traced each unexplained deposit to its source — loans, transfers between accounts, an insurance settlement — and reduced the net-worth assessment accordingly, filing the years in sequence rather than all at once.
The result
Every year is now filed and assessed on actual figures. The notional assessments were vacated and $64,000 of the estimated balance came off, with a payment arrangement covering the rest.
Case Study 4 · Deadline rescue
11-Week Turnaround Beat The Deadline And Saved $96,000 — Importer Under a Customs, Victoria
Client: An importer under a customs and GST audit · Where: Victoria, British Columbia · Engagement: 11 weeks, fixed fee
Late-filing penalty avoided$96,000
Filed with15 days to spare
Next yearPapers ready
The situation
With the deadline for charity and npo audit support weeks away, an importer under a customs and GST audit in Victoria, British Columbia was carrying an objection deadline that had passed with no extension applied for. The exposure if the date slipped was around $96,000.
What we did
We brought every outstanding return current, then negotiated a payment arrangement that stopped the collections action. The filing went in complete rather than provisional, so there was no amended return to follow.
The result
Filed with 15 days to spare. $96,000 in late-filing penalties avoided, and the working papers are ready for the following year.
Case Study 5 · Planning that cut the bill
$17,500 Cut From The Annual Tax Bill — Taxpayer with Eight Years, Guelph
Client: A taxpayer with eight years of unfiled returns · Where: Guelph, Ontario · Engagement: 4 weeks, fixed fee
First-year saving$17,500
RepeatsAnnually
Filing positionUnchanged in risk
The situation
A taxpayer with eight years of unfiled returns in Guelph, Ontario was compliant but paying more than it needed to. The prior year had been filed correctly and still left a proposal letter with a 30-day response window and no supporting records assembled on the table.
What we did
We modelled the current position against the alternatives before changing anything, then assembled the contemporaneous records, filed a structured response to each proposed adjustment with the supporting documents indexed, and had the proposal withdrawn.
The result
The change saved $17,500 in the first year and repeats annually. Nothing about the filings became more aggressive; the position is simply the one the rules already allowed.
Case Study 6 · Missed incentive claimed
$79,000 Credit Claim Filed And Accepted Without Adjustment — Professional Under a Lifestyle, Mississauga
Client: A professional under a lifestyle audit · Where: Mississauga, Ontario · Engagement: 4 weeks, fixed fee
Claim value$79,000
AcceptedWithout adjustment
RepeatableAnnually
The situation
A professional under a lifestyle audit in Mississauga, Ontario assumed the credits did not apply to a business its size. A proposal letter with a 30-day response window and no supporting records assembled meant they had applied all along.
What we did
We identified the qualifying activity, built the documentation to support it, and filed the disclosure through the Voluntary Disclosures Program before contact, which removed the gross-negligence penalty entirely.
The result
$79,000 recovered. Because the eligibility analysis is on file, the same claim can be repeated each year with a fraction of the effort.
Reviewed for the 2025 tax year by Udit Gupta, Certified Tax Accountant. Figures describe representative engagements of this type; outcomes depend on your own facts. Client names and identifying details are omitted for confidentiality.
