Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6267573" data-attributes="member: 6681948">[THINK][/THINK]I believe that you would be surprised, then.  Most of the areas you cite above have primarily civil, not criminal, penalties.  The differentiation I am most familiar with and I'm Canadian, so that is the legal structure I have at least some familiarity with) is in the income tax system.  There are numerous civil penalties under income tax law, from strict liability offences (this document was filed late and the penalty is $25/day late, minimum $100, maximum $2,500 is a pretty common penalty) to the penalty commonly referred to as gross negligence (typically 50% of the taxes otherwise sought to be avoided) and its sister penalty, for culpable conduct as a tax preparer (again, typically 50% of the tax at stake).  The last was recently held by our Federal Court of Appeal to be a civil penalty, not a misnamed criminal penalty, in a case involving penalties of over half a million dollars (almost 300,000 GBP for those of you in England).  So civil penalties can be quite significant.But they are still civil penalties.  In Canada, the Courts have held demonstrating due diligence is a defense against any and all civil penalties.  That would not be an issue for gross negligence (or culpable conduct), which require behaviour beyond simple negligence or carelessness, but has been held as a defense for strict liability penalties.  The standard for due care is typically phrased as the degree of care and attention a wise and prudent person would take in the same circumstances.There are criminal offences under the income tax system as well, the best known being tax evasion - the deliberate filing of false tax returns, essentially a form of fraud (itself an action with both criminal and civil law connotations) against the taxing authority.  Key differences: - tax evasion requires mens rea, the intent to avoid payment of taxes rightfully owing.  This is a higher standard even than gross negligence (the common law standard often being described as tantamount to willing conduct; reckless disregard for the law or indifference as to whether the law is complied with) - it is a deliberate intention to violate the law.  The courts often look for evidence of actions taken to conceal income, for example. - the burden of proof in a civil case is generally on the appellant (typically the taxpayer, as the initial court appeal is always launched by the taxpayer against an assessment by the taxing authority) except in special cases (for example the Crown generally has the burden of proof in asserting gross negligence), where the burden of proof in a criminal case is always on the Crown, who brings the charges ("innocent until proven guilty" is the standard in criminal, but not civil, law). - the standard of proof in a criminal case is the familiar "beyond a reasonable doubt", where the standard in most civil cases (all tax situations I am aware of) is a "more likely" test, which our courts have sometimes described as "one featherweight" in difference.  Combining burden and standard of proof, if the tax authority and the taxpayer present no evidence whatsoever in a civil case, the tax authority wins. In a criminal case, the tax authority must establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt.  This is a huge difference in practice, one which I likely do not fully appreciate, not being a lawyer.  For example, in a review of one's tax affairs by the taxing authorities, at least in Canada, the law imposes a duty to co-operate on the taxpayer.  In a criminal case, he has the right to remain silent, avoid self incrimination, etc.  Search and seizure laws are highly relevant in criminal cases, but not in civil cases.  The case I mentioned above is considered of great importance (it may go before our Supreme Court) due to the substantial difference between civil and criminal law, and the requirements to impose a civil penalty as opposed to a criminal sanction.</blockquote>

Verification