Archives - mars 2018

• 

  Fox v. R. – TCC: Tax Court rejects director’s “due diligence” defence

  26 mars 2018 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Corporate Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  Précis: The taxpayer was assessed as a director for unpaid source deductions and GST. The taxpayer, who was self-represented, argued that he had met the “due diligence” standard in attempting to keep the corporation’s remittances current. The Court did not accept his arguments, finding that he had failed to meet the “stricter standard” the Federal Court of Appeal had propounded in the case of R. v. Buckingham, 2011 FCA 142. As a result the appeals were dismissed. There was no order as to costs since these were all informal procedure appeals.
  Fox v. R. – TCC: Tax Court rejects director’s “due diligence” defencePlus >
• 

  Farm Credit Canada v. R. – FCA: Tax Court decision affirmed – taxpayer a “loan corporation” for GST/HST purposes

  23 mars 2018 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Commodity Tax
  • Federal Income Tax

  Précis: The taxpayer took the position that it was not a “loan corporation” for GST/HST purposes because it did not accept deposits from the public. CRA rejected that interpretation and the Tax Court agreed. The taxpayer appealed unsuccessfully to the Federal Court of Appeal. Costs of $2,200, all inclusive, were awarded to the Crown.
  Farm Credit Canada v. R. – FCA: Tax Court decision affirmed – taxpayer a “loan corporation” for GST/HST purposesPlus >
• 

  R. v. Cheema – FCA: Majority of FCA overrules the “accommodation party”/“bare trustee” exception to the GST/HST New Housing Rebate

  22 mars 2018 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Commodity Tax
  • Federal Income Tax

  Précis: CRA denied Mr. Cheema the GST/HST New Housing Rebate on the basis that his friend, Dr. Akbari, signed the agreement of purchase and sale for the home in question but, on the evidence, did not take title or contribute to the purchase price. The Tax Court allowed Mr. Cheema’s appeal on the basis that Dr. Akbari was an “accommodation party” or “bare trustee”. The decision was based on a number of earlier Tax Court decisions. A majority of the Federal Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal declining to accept the exception that the Tax Court had devised. Webb J.A., in dissent, would have dismissed the appeal. The majority made no award of costs either in the Federal Court of Appeal or the Tax Court.
  R. v. Cheema – FCA: Majority of FCA overrules the “accommodation party”/“bare trustee” exception to the GST/HST New Housing RebatePlus >
• 

  Jayco, Inc. v. R. – TCC: Mixed success on GST/HST for RVs and parts shipped from the United States to Canadian dealers

  14 mars 2018 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Commodity Tax
  • Federal Income Tax

  Précis: The issue in this appeal was whether the taxpayer, Jayco, Inc., was required to collect and remit GST/HST in recreational vehicles (RVs) and parts shipped from the United States to Canadian dealers. The Tax Court held that title to the RVs passed in the United States with the result the GST/HST was not payable. In the case of parts however the Court reached the conclusion that tax was payable in view of the means by which they were transferred to Canada. Thus the appeal was allowed in part. Costs were payable to Jayco.
  Jayco, Inc. v. R. – TCC: Mixed success on GST/HST for RVs and parts shipped from the United States to Canadian dealersPlus >
• 

  Viterra Inc. v. R. – TCC: Subsection 58(1) ruling denied on complex GST question - salient facts not before the Court

  9 mars 2018 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Commodity Tax
  • Corporate Tax

  Précis: The taxpayer moved under Rule 58(1) for determination of an issue: Was the Minister statute barred on February 19, 2016 from assessing GST collectible totalling $640,492.69 on the supply of investment management services made by the Appellant to three pension plan trusts (assuming such supplies were made), for the reporting periods from August 1, 2003 to July 31, 2004 and from August 1, 2004 to July 31, 2005? The taxpayer argued that the new reassessments, which arose out of prior assessments to which it had objected, arose out of separate transactions and were, accordingly, statute-barred. The Tax Court held that this was not an appropriate case for a determination under Rule 58(1) since many of the necessary facts were not before the Court and that the matter should be determined by the trial judge. There was no order as to costs since the Crown had consented to the Rule 58(1) hearing.
  Viterra Inc. v. R. – TCC: Subsection 58(1) ruling denied on complex GST question - salient facts not before the CourtPlus >
• 

  Margolin v. R. – TCC: New Housing Rebate denied – not primary place of residence

  8 mars 2018 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  Précis: In March of 2014 the taxpayer took occupancy of a property known as 116 Riding Mountain Drive, Richmond Hill, Ontario. He sold the property in August of 2014. The sole issue before the Tax Court was whether he acquired the property for use as his primary place of residence for the purposes of obtaining a HST New Housing Rebate. During the period he owned the Riding Mountain Drive he also owned a large home situate on 11 acres of property in King City, Ontario which he still owned at the date of the trial of this appeal. The Tax Court rejected his evidence that he had occupied the Riding Mountain Drive property as his primary place of residence in 2014 and dismissed the appeal. These was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
  Margolin v. R. – TCC: New Housing Rebate denied – not primary place of residencePlus >