An Orillia Pharmacist's Corporate Loan Survives a Reconstruction Under Audit

The situation

Marieke had eleven days to respond when she landed back in Toronto and finally read the letter her husband had been forwarding to her overseas for the past month. It was from the Canada Revenue Agency, addressed to a holding company she had incorporated years earlier, and it proposed to reassess a loan on the company's books as though it had never been a loan at all.

Marieke was a pharmacist who had spent the previous four years working at a hospital abroad, a posting she took on after a difficult stretch at home and always intended to be temporary. Before she left, she had set up a holding company that owned a modest commercial property in Orillia and, over time, made a series of advances to an operating company run by her business partner, Kenji, who managed a small chain of pharmacies. The arrangement had started as a way to help Kenji cover a cash crunch when one of his locations needed urgent repairs, and it grew over the following years into a running balance that neither of them formally documented beyond a short handwritten note and a line in the company's bookkeeping.

While Marieke was away, her husband Haruto, a hospital department manager with no background in corporate finance, kept an eye on the holding company's affairs at her request, forwarding mail and signing routine documents when the accountant asked. Neither of them treated the loan as anything unusual. Kenji made occasional repayments when his cash flow allowed, the balance grew again when it did not, and everyone assumed the arrangement was understood well enough that it did not need to be revisited.

The CRA auditor who eventually reviewed the holding company's filings did not see it that way. The loan had grown to a balance just over $300,000, with no formal agreement, no consistent interest charged, and repayment terms that seemed to exist only in memory. Under the Income Tax Act, a corporation cannot simply hand money to a business run by someone connected to its shareholder and call it a loan after the fact; if the arrangement lacks the substance of real debt, the value can instead be treated as a benefit conferred by the corporation, taxable personally to the shareholder who caused it, on top of whatever the corporation itself owes. That was the auditor's proposed reassessment: the advances recharacterized as a shareholder benefit rather than a loan, with additional personal tax assessed against Marieke on the full balance built up over the years. The deadline to respond was closing before she had even unpacked.

Why this was harder than it looked

On paper, the fix should have been straightforward: produce the loan agreement, show the interest was charged at a reasonable rate, and demonstrate the balance was being repaid in the ordinary course. The trouble was that no single document like that existed. What existed instead was years of fragmented bookkeeping entries, a handwritten note with a date that did not match when the money actually moved, and Marieke's own recollection of the arrangement, which turned out to be wrong in several places once the records were laid out in order.

Marieke recalled the loan starting with a single advance shortly before she left for her posting abroad, intended to be repaid within a year. The company's ledgers told a different story. The first advance had actually been made almost two years earlier, for a smaller amount and a different purpose than she remembered, and the timeline of subsequent advances and partial repayments bore only a loose resemblance to the version she had described to us at the outset. Her own records contradicted her own account of events, and the auditor's file, built independently from bank statements and corporate filings, was closer to what actually happened than Marieke's memory was.

That gap created real risk. An intercorporate loan that cannot be pinned down to consistent terms, and where the borrower's account of it does not match the paper trail, looks a great deal like exactly what the auditor suspected: money moved between related companies for convenience, dressed up after the fact as a loan to avoid it being treated as taxable income in Kenji's hands or a benefit in Marieke's. Getting the story wrong, even innocently, would have made the CRA's position look stronger rather than weaker. Courts that have looked at disputes like this one tend to weigh the same handful of markers: whether interest was ever charged and at what rate, whether there was a realistic repayment schedule, whether any security was taken, and whether the parties actually behaved as lender and borrower rather than as two related companies moving money back and forth without much thought. On paper, Marieke's arrangement with Kenji was thin on nearly every one of those markers, even though the underlying relationship had the shape of a genuine loan in substance.

The path forward meant setting aside what Marieke remembered and rebuilding the loan's actual history purely from contemporaneous records, then constructing an honest account of the arrangement that matched what the documents showed rather than what anyone recalled. It also meant being candid with the CRA about the informality of the early years while showing that the substance of a genuine lending relationship, advances tracked, some interest eventually charged, repayments made when funds allowed, was there even if the paperwork had been thin.

What we did

1. Pulled every bank and bookkeeping record for both companies. We requested five years of statements, general ledger entries, and accountant working papers for the holding company and the operating company, since the true timeline of the loan could only be reconstructed from records made at the time, not from anyone's recollection of them years later. Starting with the source documents, rather than with Marieke's own account, meant the file was built on facts the CRA could not later dispute.
2. Built a transaction-by-transaction reconciliation. We matched every advance and repayment to a specific bank transfer and ledger entry, producing a single reconciled schedule that replaced the inconsistent version Marieke had originally described and gave the file a factual foundation the CRA could check independently rather than take on faith, which mattered given how much of the original account had turned out to be wrong.
3. Corrected the record before the CRA could use the discrepancy against us. Rather than let the auditor discover the gap between Marieke's account and the actual paper trail, we disclosed the corrected timeline proactively in our written response, framing it as an honest reconstruction rather than a moving target, which preserved our credibility on every other point in the file.
4. Documented the commercial purpose behind each major advance. We tied the two largest advances to specific, verifiable events, the pharmacy repair and a later inventory purchase, using invoices and repair estimates from Kenji's operating company to show the money served a genuine business purpose rather than personal convenience. A loan with a traceable commercial reason behind it is far harder for an auditor to recast as a disguised benefit than one that simply appears in the ledger unexplained.
5. Assembled evidence of an ongoing lending relationship. We compiled the record of partial repayments made over the years, showing the balance fluctuated the way an actual loan does, rather than sitting as a static, one-way transfer that never moved, which was central to distinguishing it from a disguised benefit and directly answered the factor auditors weigh most heavily in cases like this one.
6. Prepared a retroactive loan agreement grounded in the reconstructed facts. Working with the company's accountant, we drafted formal loan terms, an interest rate, and a repayment schedule that reflected what the reconciled records actually showed had happened, rather than backdating convenient terms that would not withstand scrutiny. Anchoring the agreement to the real transaction history, instead of a tidier story, meant it could be produced to the CRA without contradicting anything already on file.
7. Filed a comprehensive written response before the deadline. We submitted the reconciliation, supporting documents, and legal argument together, addressing the shareholder benefit characterization directly and explaining why the substance of the arrangement supported treating it as a loan despite its informal early years. Filing everything as one coherent package, rather than in pieces, gave the auditor a complete picture to evaluate rather than a series of disconnected claims to weigh separately.
8. Followed up directly with the auditor's office. We requested a call to walk through the reconciliation in person, anticipating that a document this detailed would land better with an explanation than as a cold submission, and used the conversation to answer the auditor's remaining questions before a formal decision issued, closing off any risk that a follow-up question would sit unanswered and drag the file out further.

The outcome

The Canada Revenue Agency accepted the reconstructed loan history and withdrew the proposed reassessment in full. The auditor's written response noted that the reconciled schedule, together with the documented commercial purpose behind the major advances and the pattern of partial repayments, was sufficient to establish the arrangement as a genuine loan rather than a shareholder benefit. No additional tax was assessed against Marieke or the holding company on this issue, and the full balance in dispute, which had climbed just over $300,000 over the life of the arrangement, stayed off her personal return entirely.

The result did not come without cost along the way. Reconstructing five years of transactions across two companies took considerably more time and expense than resolving a well-documented loan would have, and Marieke had to accept, uncomfortably, that her own memory of the arrangement had been unreliable in ways that could have hurt the file if they had surfaced later rather than being corrected up front. The retroactive loan agreement also meant the company had to formalize an interest rate and terms going forward that were more rigid than the informal arrangement Kenji had grown used to.

For Marieke, the case underlined something she had not fully appreciated before it started: a loan between related companies is only as strong as the records that support it, regardless of how well the two people involved trust each other. The arrangement with Kenji continues on the newly formalized terms, and both companies now keep a level of documentation for intercompany advances that neither had bothered with before the audit forced the question. Marieke also came away with a sharper sense of how much an auditor can infer from bookkeeping alone, without ever asking a single question: the entries themselves either tell a consistent story or they do not, and no amount of goodwill between the people involved changes what the ledger says happened.

What you can learn from this