 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
Leafs star John Tavares is appealing a CRA tax assessment of $6.8 million on his $15.4 million bonus being part of his seven-year $77 million contract entered into when he left the New York Islanders in 2018 to join the Leafs. He claims he should be assessed pursuant to the Canadian-U.S.A. Tax Treaty at 15 per cent tax and not at his top bracket of 50 per cent.
I think Tavares has a hard road to hoe ahead. The reasons I so believe is that judges are still human, and I doubt they will be able to shake off inherent biases. (I’ll have more to say about the human part later.)
I see three such biases.
1. Wealth, fame, and glory bias
Who is the underdog here? Normally I’d say anybody as opposed to the CRA. However here we have a revered athlete who earns millions annually to skate around and chase a hockey puck. The judges only earn in the ballpark of $400K. Any judge will do the math and conclude that $15.4 million less $6.8 million still leaves $8.6 million. That’s more than enough to attend even a Taylor Swift concert.
And let us not forget the perks these stars enjoy. They work only about nine months per year. They travel on private jets and get royal treatment even at airports. I once happened to be at Pearson Airport’s security line when the Leafs showed up heading out for a road game probably to some fun place like Florida or Vegas. I was standing there having just been requested to trash my water bottle. I’m sure if Tavares would say he’s thirsty, the security agent would reply, “Hey John, can I get you a Pepsi?” The guy would hand it to him and then bow in the direction of the Scotia Centre.
The judge on the other hand would be told, “Sir, keep the line moving, and take off your shoes. “
2. Fan bias
I am talking about the judge not being a Leafs’ fan. What if he is a Habs fan? Tavares would now have two strikes against him right off the bat. Or should I say a double major right off the face off. The Toronto-Montreal rivalry is likely the oldest in the NHL. I know as I grew up in Montreal. When the hockey season started our love for Toronto rivaled that of our affection for Sodom and Gomorrah. I say woe is Tavares’s appeal if underneath his robe the judge is wearing a red, white, and blue sweater with the CH emblem on it. Tavares is toast. Or should I say poutine.
3. Spectator bias
By this I mean resentment of never being able to easily secure good tickets to a Leafs’ game. Generally no problem getting decent seats at a Blue Jays game, but I have lived in Toronto for a half century and have only had the luck of getting two reds at a Leafs game a handful of times. And most of the time they came from colleague associates at biglaw firms who were grounded at the last minute as they had to do an all nighter to work on some urgent acquisition deal.
If the judge hearing the Tavares case ever got stiffed when he wanted to attend a Leafs game as a result of no tickets being available or worse, if he got scalped, then for Tavares the period is over. I actually went through this miserable type of experience when for my ninth birthday my father tried desperately to take me to a Habs game at the former Montreal Forum. The best we got was two grays; not seats, just the right to watch the game standing behind the grays. Binoculars were extra.
No matter how the Leafs are doing it’s impossible to score good seats easily and reasonably. I know what I would do were I the judge in this case. In fact here is my well-reasoned out decision:
“The Application to reduce the tax assessment is hereby dismissed. With costs.”
I did say I would come back to the judges being human comment. The only chance Tavares has in winning his application is to get around these inherent biases. This is only possible if the judge is a robot. I know of no robot which cares about money or glory, is an avid hockey fan or experienced the trauma of having spent his ninth birthday standing behind the grays at the Montreal Forum.
And it is a good thing that judges are human. But until we get non-human robot judges, I’m afraid John Tavares will have to overcome these three biases. This will be his most difficult hat trick.
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book, Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging, is available on Amazon (e-book) and in paper version. His new(!) book First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe, is available on Amazon, Apple and other book places. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him on X: @MarcelsHumour.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.