Earlier on I spoke about the broad numbers. I spoke of 5,000 cases in litigation. I spoke about the cases that go to court, about 2,200. Of those where a settlement is reached, it is about 3,000.
On prosecutions, we haven't touched upon what's an important distinction between instances of tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning versus tax evasion, tax evasion being a criminal matter. These two are often blurred in public commentary and discourse, but for the revenue administration it's a very material distinction.
For a criminal offence, tax evasion, there's a very high evidentiary burden on the crown. To successfully prosecute we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the taxpayer made false or deceptive statements. We will have to take that case to the public prosecutor, who will ultimately decide whether to prosecute.
With tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning, the burden on the agency or on the crown is lower. That's where we're looking for a taxpayer who has received a benefit that is contrary to the objective or the spirit of the Income Tax Act. We can then reassess them on that basis. A tax court ultimately could then be called upon to review the validity. That's based on a civil standard of proof and balance of probabilities.