6 CRA Garnishment Assistance 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 cra garnishment assistance work, not a general example.
Case Study 1 · Objection and relief
Desk-Review Assessment Of $80,000 Vacated — Taxpayer with Eight Years, Regina
Client: A taxpayer with eight years of unfiled returns · Where: Regina, Saskatchewan · Engagement: 7 weeks, fixed fee
Assessment vacated$80,000
Supporting recordsNow on file
AccountCleared
The situation
A taxpayer with eight years of unfiled returns in Regina, Saskatchewan was carrying $80,000 of penalties and interest arising from a director liability assessment for a corporation that had already stopped operating, much of it accumulated during a period the CRA itself had delayed.
What we did
We assembled the contemporaneous records, filed a structured response to each proposed adjustment with the supporting documents indexed, and had the proposal withdrawn and framed the relief application on the specific grounds the CRA guidelines recognise rather than on general hardship.
The result
The assessment was vacated. $80,000 came off the account, and the documentation now on file makes the same position straightforward to defend next time.
Case Study 2 · CRA review defended
$87,000 Proposed Adjustment Withdrawn In Full — Family Business Under a, Guelph
Client: A family business under a related-party review · Where: Guelph, Ontario · Engagement: 11 weeks, fixed fee
Adjustment withdrawn$87,000
File closed in11 weeks
Penalties assessedNone
The situation
A family business under a related-party review in Guelph, Ontario received a proposal letter opening a review of cra garnishment assistance. The CRA had identified an objection deadline that had passed with no extension applied for and proposed an adjustment of $87,000, 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The proposed adjustment was withdrawn in full — all $87,000 of it. The file closed in 11 weeks with no change to the assessed amounts and no penalty.
Case Study 3 · Deadline rescue
Filed On Time From A Standing Start, $48,000 Penalty Avoided — Business Owner with a, Winnipeg
Client: A business owner with a director liability assessment · Where: Winnipeg, Manitoba · Engagement: 5 weeks, fixed fee
Penalty avoided$48,000
Turnaround5 weeks
FiledOn time
The situation
A business owner with a director liability assessment in Winnipeg, Manitoba came to us 5 weeks before its filing deadline with a proposal letter with a 30-day response window and no supporting records assembled. A late filing would have triggered a penalty of roughly $48,000 before interest.
What we did
We worked backwards from the deadline. We traced each unexplained deposit to its source — loans, transfers between accounts, an insurance settlement — and reduced the net-worth assessment accordingly, prioritising the items that actually gated the filing and deferring everything that did not.
The result
The return was filed on time and complete. The $48,000 penalty never arose, and the compliance calendar we set means the next deadline is scheduled rather than discovered.
Case Study 4 · Missed incentive claimed
Incentive Review Recovered $46,000 Across 5 Open Years — Restaurant Under a Net-Worth, Kitchener
Client: A restaurant under a net-worth audit · Where: Kitchener, Ontario · Engagement: 8 weeks, fixed fee
Recovered$46,000
Open years claimed5
Ongoing trackingIn place
The situation
An incentive review at a restaurant under a net-worth audit in Kitchener, Ontario started from a simple question: what has never been claimed? The answer ran to 5 years, driven by a proposal letter with a 30-day response window and no supporting records assembled.
What we did
We brought every outstanding return current, then negotiated a payment arrangement that stopped the collections action, documenting eligibility to the standard a reviewer would apply rather than the standard a claim form requires.
The result
The credits produced $46,000 across the open years, and the tracking now in place means the following year's claim is documented as the work happens rather than reconstructed afterwards.
Case Study 5 · Records and systems rebuilt
Month-End Close Cut From 11 Weeks To 9 Days — Company Facing a Payroll, Lethbridge
Client: A company facing a payroll trust examination · Where: Lethbridge, Alberta · Engagement: 11 weeks, fixed fee
Close time before11 weeks
Close time after9 days
Year-endReview, not rebuild
The situation
The accounting file at a company facing a payroll trust examination in Lethbridge, Alberta was built on a net-worth assessment built on unexplained deposits that were actually loan proceeds. The year-end had taken 11 weeks each of the last three years.
What we did
We assembled the contemporaneous records, filed a structured response to each proposed adjustment with the supporting documents indexed, and had the proposal withdrawn and moved the reconciliations into the monthly cycle, so the year-end stopped being a rebuild.
The result
The file reconciles. Month-end closes in 9 days instead of 11 weeks, and the year-end is a review rather than a reconstruction.
Case Study 6 · Sale and succession
Share Sale Restructured, $865,000 Less Tax On Closing — Corporation Under a GST/HST, Hamilton
Client: A corporation under a GST/HST review · Where: Hamilton, Ontario · Engagement: 4 weeks, fixed fee
Tax saved on closing$865,000
PriceAs agreed
Post-closing adjustmentsNone
The situation
A corporation under a GST/HST review in Hamilton, Ontario was preparing to sell. Due diligence surfaced a minute book with no resolutions behind a decade of dividends, which would have reduced the price or killed the deal outright.
What we did
We cleaned up the historical file, filed the disclosure through the Voluntary Disclosures Program before contact, which removed the gross-negligence penalty entirely, and prepared the due-diligence package the buyer's advisers actually asked for.
The result
The deal closed at the agreed price. $865,000 of tax was saved against the structure originally proposed, with no post-closing adjustment.
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.
