Archives - août 2015

• 

  Coast Capital Savings Credit Union v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer cannot plead “sham”

  31 août 2015 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: The taxpayer was the unknowing victim of an RRSP strip scheme. The annuitants set up self-administered RRSPs with the taxpayer and then directed the taxpayer to use the funds in the RRSP to purchase the shares of a Canadian corporation from a third party. The promoters of the scheme then transferred the purchase money offshore into vehicles to which the annuitants had access but, theoretically, in which they had no ownership interest.
  Coast Capital Savings Credit Union v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer cannot plead “sham”Plus >
• 

  C.J. McCarty Inc. v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer was not an incorporated employee

  31 août 2015 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: Bruce McCarty was the principal of C.J. McCarty Inc. (“CJ”) which provided construction management services on large construction projects. Mr. McCarty had more than 35 years experience in the industry. In 2007 and 2008 CJ provided construction management services to MEG Energy Corp. (“MEG”) in connection with the construction of refinery facilities at Christina Lake, British Columbia. CRA took the position that CJ was a “personal services business”, e.g., that Mr. McCarty was an “incorporated employee”.
  C.J. McCarty Inc. v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer was not an incorporated employeePlus >
• 

  Tele-Mobile Company v. R. - TCC: Roaming services in US not a separate supply for GST

  28 août 2015 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Commodity Tax

  Précis: The issue in this decision was whether roaming airtime services (“RAT”) provided to Tele-Mobile customers making long distance calls from the United States to Canada were a separate supply or simply part of the supply of telephone services by Tele-Mobile. If the former, the supply would not be taxable in Canada since the supply was not “made” in Canada. If the latter, the supply would be taxable since it would be “made” in Canada.
  Tele-Mobile Company v. R. - TCC: Roaming services in US not a separate supply for GSTPlus >
• 

  Remtilla v. R. - TCC: T1 Adjustment Requests operated as waivers of statute-barred years

  28 août 2015 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: The taxpayer (a tax accountant) and his wife traded securities through a brokerage account. In 2005, 2006 and 2007 they treated their gains and losses as being on capital account. In 2008 they had large losses (roughly $500,000 each). In filing their 2008 returns they claimed their losses as business losses. They also filed T1 Adjustment Requests to have their 2005, 2006 and 2007 gains and losses treated as being from business. They entered into a settlement with CRA in 2012 under the terms of which they were given business loss treatment in 2008. However after the settlement was reached they objected to the reassessment of their gains in 2006 and 2007 as being on income account.
  Remtilla v. R. - TCC: T1 Adjustment Requests operated as waivers of statute-barred yearsPlus >
• 

  Rossi v. R. - TCC: Court dismisses appeal filed four years late

  27 août 2015 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: Mr. Rossi was reassessed for 2003 in 2006; he filed a notice of objection in a timely manner. In 2010 CRA confirmed the 2003 reassessment by letter sent to Mr. Rossi by registered mail with a copy by first class mail to his accountant. When the letter sent to Mr. Rossi was returned to CRA unclaimed, it sent the letter to Mr. Rossi again, this time by first class mail, also in 2010. Mr. Rossi and his accountant claimed that in reviewing his account with CRA it was not clear that the 2003 reassessment had been confirmed. In 2014 Mr. Rossi filed a notice of appeal in the Tax Court and CRA moved to have it dismissed.
  Rossi v. R. - TCC: Court dismisses appeal filed four years latePlus >
• 

  Basic v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer denied deduction of most home office expenses

  27 août 2015 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: Mr. Basic operated an aluminum siding business from his home. He was reassessed for 2007 denying roughly $50,000 of the expenses he claimed. He was also assessed for unremitted GST. The two appeals were heard together.
  Basic v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer denied deduction of most home office expensesPlus >
• 

  Tréport Wedding and Convention Centre Ltd. v. R. - TCC: Banquet hall workers not employees

  26 août 2015 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Employment Insurance/CPP

  Précis: The appellant had in excess of 100 workers for the operation of five banquet rooms it operated in one leased banquet hall. With the exception of two workers that the appellant conceded were employees the Court held that the rest were all independent contractors since they were under little supervision and negotiated their own pay rates.
  Tréport Wedding and Convention Centre Ltd. v. R. - TCC: Banquet hall workers not employeesPlus >
• 

  Ali v. R. - TCC: Court rejects evidence that all expense documentation lost

  26 août 2015 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: Over the 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 taxation years Ms. Ali claimed large deductions for employment and business expenses and tuition. CRA rejected the bulk of her claims as being unsubstantiated. The Tax Court dismissed the appeal. Ms. Ali’s evidence about her expenses was simply not credible.
  Ali v. R. - TCC: Court rejects evidence that all expense documentation lostPlus >
• 

  Sood v. R. - FC: Federal Court will not direct Minister to enforce an illegal tax settlement

  25 août 2015 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Other

  Précis: In February of 2014 Mr. Sood reached a settlement with CRA that would have permitted him a portion of an Ontario New Housing Rebate on a home he agreed to purchase in June of 2007 (he took possession in June of 2011). Subsequent to the date of the settlement CRA discovered that the Ontario New Housing Rebate plan did not take effect until July 1, 2010 and therefore Mr. Sood was not entitled to any Ontario Rebate. CRA refused to go ahead with the settlement and Mr. Sood sued in the Federal Court to enforce it.
  Sood v. R. - FC: Federal Court will not direct Minister to enforce an illegal tax settlementPlus >
• 

  Mason v. R. - FC: Court will not restrain GST collection efforts of CRA

  25 août 2015 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Other

  Précis: Mr. Mason was an accountant. He had been assessed for arrears in GST. He appealed to the Tax Court but was only partially successful. He appealed that decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. While the Tax Court appeal was underway CRA launched collection proceedings against him, sending third party demands to his clients.
  Mason v. R. - FC: Court will not restrain GST collection efforts of CRAPlus >