Are Uber Drivers Subject to HST?
Boylu v. The King, 2025 TCC 192 (Informal Procedure)
by Amit Ummat, Tax Litigator
Facts
The appellant was an Ontario-based Uber driver during 2015 and 2016. Riders booked trips through the Uber app, Uber set fares and fees, collected payments from riders, retained a 20% service fee, and remitted the balance to the appellant. The appellant did not charge or remit HST and filed nil GST/HST returns for both years, believing Uber was responsible for HST collection. He was later retroactively registered by CRA and assessed HST of approximately $8,500, plus penalties, on the full gross fares (i.e., before Uber’s commission).
The appellant represented himself. CRA assumed that his annual revenues exceeded the $30,000 small supplier threshold in both years but did not plead or establish when during the relevant quarters the threshold was exceeded. The appellant also claimed additional ITCs for meals, phone costs, and highway tolls, relying primarily on credit-card statements after original receipts faded.
Issues
- Was the appellant an employee of Uber or an independent contractor making taxable supplies?
- Did the appellant lose small supplier status in 2015 and thereby have an obligation to register and collect HST?
- If so, for what portion of 2016 was HST collectible?
- Was the appellant entitled to additional ITCs?
Holding
The appellant was an independent contractor, not an employee.
He remained a small supplier throughout 2015 and January 2016 and therefore had no obligation to register or collect HST for that period.
He ceased to be a small supplier as of February 1, 2016, and was required to collect HST from that point forward.
No additional ITCs were allowed.
The appeal was allowed and the assessments were referred back for reassessment accordingly, without costs.
Key Analysis
Although the Court ultimately characterized the appellant as an independent contractor under Sagaz, Justice Friedlander placed significant weight on procedural fairness and pleading discipline. CRA assessed HST in 2015 based on annual revenue figures, but failed to apply the rolling four-quarter look-back required by s. 148 ETA or to plead facts establishing when the $30,000 threshold was crossed. The Court rejected CRA’s attempt to cure this defect in post-trial submissions, emphasizing that Informal Procedure litigants, particularly self-represented ones, must know the case they have to meet.
The Court also declined to consider whether Uber driving constituted a “taxi business” prior to the July 1, 2017 statutory amendment, noting that CRA did not plead or argue the point at all. Retroactive registration likewise could not be used to impose collection obligations during periods when the appellant was a small supplier.
On ITCs, the Court drew a sharp line between documentation flexibility and substantive eligibility. While credit-card statements may qualify as supporting documentation in principle, the appellant failed substantively: meals were personal, phone expenses were not reasonably apportioned, and 407 tolls were exempt supplies. Documentation was also insufficient for purchases over $30.
Why This Case Matters
This decision is a pointed reminder that:
- Annual revenue alone does not establish loss of small supplier status.
- CRA cannot rely on post-hoc litigation theories to rescue legally defective assessments.
- Courts will enforce procedural fairness rigorously in Informal Procedure cases.
- ITC documentation rules are evolving, but personal expenses and poor apportionment remain fatal.
The decision is technically modest and quietly unforgiving of careless assessments.
