Sanjay and Kavya face a second instalment reckoning near Petawawa

The situation

Sanjay was on a rest break between flights when he opened the envelope from the Canada Revenue Agency in the crew lounge at the airport. The number in the interest column was not a few hundred dollars, the kind of thing that shows up when a payment posts a week late. It was a five-figure amount, attached to a corporation he and Kavya had built slowly over almost a decade. He read it twice before he called her.

The corporation held a parcel of farmland near Petawawa that Kavya had inherited, and what began as a way to keep the land productive had grown into a real cash-crop operation, with grain contracts, financed equipment and, in good years, a meaningful profit. Sanjay flew for a regional charter carrier and Kavya ran an optometry practice in town; neither of them had time to manage the farm's books day to day, so Anneke, a bookkeeper they had used for years, handled the corporation's remittances, instalments and year-end filings.

This was not the first time instalment interest had shown up on a notice from the CRA. Two years earlier, a similar letter had arrived, smaller then, and we had explained at the time what had gone wrong and how to keep it from recurring: pay instalments based on the current year's estimated tax rather than an old formula, and flag any change to the corporation's fiscal timing well before it took effect. The advice had been filed away rather than acted on.

The corporation had since changed its fiscal year end, moving from a calendar year to one that lined up better with the farm's harvest and equipment purchase cycle. The change made sense operationally. Nobody had gone back and recalculated what it meant for instalment payments, which are based on the corporation's tax liability for a period that had just shifted underneath them. Instalments kept going out on the old schedule, calculated against the wrong period, and the shortfall compounded for most of a year before the notice arrived.

By the time Sanjay called Kavya, the total in dispute, between the interest itself and the portion of the underlying instalment shortfall CRA was treating as unresolved, sat well into six figures. For a corporation whose principals both worked outside it, that was not a number either of them could absorb without a plan, and they knew this time they needed one before the next filing deadline, not after.

The legal problem

Corporations in Canada, above a certain threshold, are required to pay their income tax in instalments throughout the year rather than as a single amount when the return is filed. The instalment amounts are calculated based on the corporation's estimated tax liability for the current year or, alternatively, based on the prior year's assessed tax. When a corporation gets this calculation wrong, the CRA does not simply ask for the shortfall; it charges interest on the underpaid instalments, calculated as though the money had been owed and unpaid from the date each instalment was due.

The complication in Sanjay and Kavya's file was the fiscal year-end change. A corporation's instalment obligations are tied to its taxation year, and when that year moves, the instalment periods, due dates and the prior-year figure the calculation leans on all move with it. A short taxation year created by the change had its own instalment obligations, calculated on a prorated basis, that were separate from what the corporation would have owed under its old calendar-year schedule. Anneke had continued remitting on the old schedule because nobody had told her the transition rules were different.

The legal problem, in other words, was not a dispute about whether tax was owed; it was a dispute about whether the interest that had accrued on the instalment shortfall should be cancelled or reduced, given that the shortfall arose from a timing transition rather than an attempt to avoid payment. The Income Tax Act gives CRA discretion to cancel or reduce instalment interest in circumstances that justify it, but that discretion is not automatic, and it is not granted for a simple oversight; it requires a request that lays out clearly what happened, when the corporation became aware of it, and what steps were taken once it did.

There was also a repeat-client complication sitting underneath the technical one. CRA officers reviewing a relief request look at the taxpayer's compliance history, and a corporation asking for interest relief for a second time, on a similar issue, after having been told what to watch for the first time, faces a materially harder version of that review than a first-time applicant would. A reviewer reading the file cold could reasonably conclude the corporation had been warned once already and simply had not built a system to prevent the same thing from happening again, which meant the relief request would need to answer that impression directly rather than leave it sitting unaddressed in the background.

What we did

1. Recalculated the corporation's true instalment position. We worked with Anneke to rebuild the instalment schedule from the fiscal year-end change forward, splitting the short transition year from the new fiscal year and identifying exactly which instalments had been calculated on the wrong base. This gave us a defensible figure for what should have been paid, rather than accepting CRA's assessment as the only version of events, and it became the foundation for every argument that followed.
2. Separated the interest dispute from the underlying tax. We confirmed that the corporation's actual tax liability was not in question; the dispute was entirely about interest charged on instalments that had been miscalculated during a legitimate fiscal transition. Narrowing the issue this way mattered, because it meant we were not asking CRA to reconsider the corporation's tax position, only to exercise its discretion over interest, a request with a much narrower and more achievable target.
3. Documented the fiscal year-end change and its timing. We assembled the corporate resolution approving the change, the filing that notified CRA of the new year end, and a timeline showing when Anneke had been told about it and when the old instalment schedule should have been retired. This paper trail let us show the interest arose from an identifiable, one-time transition rather than ongoing carelessness.
4. Addressed the repeat-client history directly instead of hoping it went unnoticed. Rather than downplay the earlier instalment notice, we referenced it in the relief request, explained what advice had been given, and set out concretely what had changed this time: a written instalment calendar Anneke would follow going forward, tied to the corporation's actual fiscal year rather than a calendar default. Acknowledging the history head-on made the request more credible, not less.
5. Filed a taxpayer relief request for the instalment interest. We prepared and submitted a formal request asking CRA to cancel the portion of the interest attributable to the fiscal year-end transition, supported by the recalculated instalment base, the documentation of the change, and the corrective steps already taken. The request focused on the transition period specifically, rather than asking for blanket relief on every instalment charge on the account.
6. Put a compliance system in place before the request was even decided. We did not wait for CRA's decision to fix the ongoing problem. Anneke moved to a quarterly instalment review built around the corporation's new fiscal year, with a calendar flag for any future change in year end, so the same gap could not reopen even if this particular relief request was refused.
7. Responded to CRA's follow-up questions with the full recalculation on hand. When the reviewing officer asked for clarification on how the short transition year's instalments had been calculated, we had the figures ready within days rather than needing to rebuild them under time pressure, which kept the file moving instead of stalling in a queue for months while a reviewer waited on documents that should have accompanied the original submission.

The outcome

CRA accepted the relief request for the portion of interest tied directly to the fiscal year-end transition, cancelling the majority of the amount in dispute. The interest that had accrued after Sanjay and Kavya became aware of the problem and before the corrected instalment schedule took effect was not cancelled; CRA's position, which we agreed was reasonable, was that relief covers the period before a taxpayer reasonably could have corrected course, not the weeks it took to implement the fix. That portion, in the low five figures, remained payable, and the corporation cleared it within a single quarter out of that year's harvest revenue.

For Sanjay and Kavya, the result meant the corporation avoided what had briefly looked like a serious cash-flow problem for a business neither of them worked in full time. It also meant the second instalment notice did not simply repeat the pattern of the first one; this time the underlying process changed, not just the immediate bill. Anneke's new quarterly review has since caught two smaller instalment adjustments before they became a problem, each resolved with a routine payment rather than a notice from CRA, and each one a small, quiet confirmation that the new system was actually doing its job.

The file also left a clearer lesson for Sanjay and Kavya than the first one had: advice about instalment calculations is not a one-time fix, it is a process that has to survive changes to the business, including ones that seem unrelated, like a fiscal year end chosen for harvest timing rather than tax planning. Being a repeat client did not sink the relief request, but it meant the request had to work harder, and it meant the corrective steps mattered as much as the legal argument about the interest itself. Sanjay said afterward that the second notice had actually been useful, in a way the first one had not managed to be, because this time the fix stuck.

What you can learn from this