I don't want to bring up specific examples, but I've been a member of Parliament for the last two and a half years. Any time we've had to deal with the CRA, it's been extremely frustrating because the interpretation is so strict, to the letter of the law, even if common sense would dictate that the resource being spent fighting this doesn't make any sense.
For example, a company is behind on its HST. You guys freeze their accounts, which allows them not to pay their employees, which allows them not to conduct business. Basically, you want them to pay, but you also won't allow them to conduct their business. Logically speaking, in good faith it would be like, “Okay, we'll pay you $1,000 every week. Please let us continue our business so that we can make revenue, pay you, and work with the CRA to get to this balance.” It seems like an overly harsh interpretation to say, “Pay the $5,000 you owe or we're not going to unfreeze your accounts.” To me, that doesn't make any sense.
I would love your insight on why there's such a strict interpretation by some of your officers at the CRA when it's small businesses that aren't overly wealthy, that are employing Canadians, and that sometimes, because of bad accounting advice or bad legal advice, fall behind on their payments. They recognize that they have to pay it, and they're looking for a payment plan.