Archives - avril 2017

• 

  Industrielle v. Mazraani - FCA: Tax Court Judge violated official language rights - new trial ordered

  27 avril 2017 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: The worker, Mr. Mazraani, alleged that he did not speak French well. The Tax Court Judge encouraged the counsel for Industrielle and its witnesses to speak English for the most part (with the exception of technical terms). The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Tax Court procedure violated the official language rights of Industrielle, its counsel and its witnesses as well as Mr. Mazraani. The matter was referred back to the Tax Court for a new trial before another judge. The parties did not seek costs and none were awarded.
  Industrielle v. Mazraani - FCA: Tax Court Judge violated official language rights - new trial orderedPlus >
• 

  Le Groupe PPP v. R. - TCC: No ITCs on form of car loss protection plan - not a “warranty”

  26 avril 2017 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Commodity Tax

  Précis: The taxpayer operated a form of loss protection plan which enabled drivers whose vehicles were the subject of a partial or total loss (it is not clear from the decision whether “loss” covered theft) to receive a new vehicle from the dealership where they purchased the original vehicle. In effect, the plan topped up the payment received from the vehicle’s primary insurer, which was limited to the depreciated value of the vehicle. The taxpayer claimed ITCs on the basis that it was a form of “warranty” program within the provision of section 175.1 of the Excise Tax Act (the “ETA”). CRA denied the ITCs on the basis that the plan was a form of “insurance” which was specifically carved out of section 175.1. The Tax Court found that the plan operated as a form of insurance, not a warranty, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
  Le Groupe PPP v. R. - TCC: No ITCs on form of car loss protection plan - not a “warranty”Plus >
• 

  President Trump's Tax Reform Released

  26 avril 2017 By Taxnet Pro

  catégories:

  • International Tax

  This post alerts readers to the tax reform measures discussed in a White House briefing on April 26, 2017, highlighting the key corporate tax and personal tax proposals from the Trump administration, including the deduction of the corporate tax rate, the repeal of the estates tax and alternative minimum tax, the decrease in personal income tax brackets, the elimination of income tax deductions on a couple's income earnings under $24,000, and much more.
  President Trump's Tax Reform ReleasedPlus >
• 

  Freitas v. R. - TCC: Amount paid to retired accountant not a “retiring allowance” and subject to CPP contributions

  25 avril 2017 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: Mr. Freitas retired from Deloitte & Touche LLP on May 31, 2007. He received a distribution from Deloitte in 2008 which he thought was a retiring allowance and therefore not subject to CPP contributions. He was reassessed by CRA in respect of CPP contributions on the amount and appealed to the Tax Court. The Tax Court held that the disputed amount was not a retiring allowance and therefore was subject to CPP contributions. Mr. Freitas was also unsuccessful in an attempt to introduce new evidence after the conclusion of the hearing. Accordingly his appeal was dismissed. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
  Freitas v. R. - TCC: Amount paid to retired accountant not a “retiring allowance” and subject to CPP contributionsPlus >
• 

  McKenzie v. R. - TCC: Distribution from US IRA of taxpayer’s deceased mother taxable

  24 avril 2017 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: Ms. McKenzie received roughly $22,000 from the US IRA of her late mother, who had been a resident of the United States prior to her death (and not a resident of Canada). CRA assessed the amount as income pursuant to clause 56(1)(a)(i)(C.1) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”). Counsel for Ms. McKenzie argued that an alternative method of taxation applied and that the position contended by CRA would result in double taxation (under each of section 56 and section 70) within the provision of paragraph 248(28)(a) of the Act. The Court rejected both arguments.
  McKenzie v. R. - TCC: Distribution from US IRA of taxpayer’s deceased mother taxablePlus >
• 

  CBS Canada Holdings Co. v. R. - FCA: Affidavit tendered on motion not hearsay evidence - appeal allowed

  24 avril 2017 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: The taxpayer filed an affidavit by a Ms. Toaze, a lawyer for the taxpayer (not a lawyer acting as counsel in the proceedings but a member of the same firm), in a motion to enforce a settlement agreement with CRA. The Crown moved to strike the affidavit. The Tax Court Judge held that the affidavit was hearsay and exercised her discretion to exclude it. The taxpayer appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the Tax Court Judge erred in excluding the affidavit and allowed the appeal with costs both in the Court of Appeal and in the Tax Court.
  CBS Canada Holdings Co. v. R. - FCA: Affidavit tendered on motion not hearsay evidence - appeal allowedPlus >
• 

  Dicosmo v. R. - FCA: Taxpayer’s failure to plead statute-barring fatal to his appeal

  21 avril 2017 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: The taxpayer appealed from a decision of the Tax Court denying him certain employment expenses and not permitting him to raise a defence of statute-barring which he had not pleaded (two other grounds of appeal were abandoned). The Federal Court of Appeal found the he had not demonstrated any reviewable error on the denial of employment expenses. With respect to statute-barring, the law was clear: it had to be pleaded. As a result the appeal was dismissed from the bench with costs.
  Dicosmo v. R. - FCA: Taxpayer’s failure to plead statute-barring fatal to his appealPlus >
• 

  Coathup v. R. - TCC: director at music school was an employee

  21 avril 2017 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: The appellant hired Ms. Grace Pham Vanstone to run music programs for students at two locations operated by the appellant. The sole issue was whether Ms. Vanstone was an employee or an independent contractor. The Court found that there was no common intention between the appellant and Ms. Vanstone as to her status. The Court weighed all of the pertinent factors from the jurisprudence and concluded that Ms. Vanstone was an employee. Thus CRA’s decision was confirmed.
  Coathup v. R. - TCC: director at music school was an employeePlus >
• 

  Biles Estate v. R. - FC: Court refuses order of mandamus to compel CRA to comply with alleged agreement

  20 avril 2017 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: This decision involved two applications for judicial review by the same taxpayer. They were heard together. The taxpayer sought an order of mandamus to compel CRA to comply with the terms of an alleged agreement (the “Proposal”) to settle a tax dispute. The Federal Court found that the taxpayer had failed to demonstrate that there in fact was any enforceable agreement with respect to the Proposal. In any event CRA’s conduct was not unreasonable under the circumstances. Both applications were dismissed with costs.
  Biles Estate v. R. - FC: Court refuses order of mandamus to compel CRA to comply with alleged agreementPlus >
• 

  Ike Enterpreises Inc. v. R. - TCC: Ginger and granola were food stuffs not snacks and therefore GST/HST exempt

  20 avril 2017 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Commodity Tax

  Précis: The taxpayer manufactured various food products. CRA took the position that three of them were subject to GST/HST and not exempt supplies: ginger, granola and “sticks” (made of wheat, rice and spelt). The Tax Court found that the ginger and granola were, on the evidence, groceries and therefore exempt supplies. The “sticks” were found to be a snack product and therefore not an exempt supply. The taxpayer was entitled to costs since it succeeded on 2 of the 3 disputed items; failing an agreement as to the amount of costs the parties were given 60 days to make submissions on costs.
  Ike Enterpreises Inc. v. R. - TCC: Ginger and granola were food stuffs not snacks and therefore GST/HST exemptPlus >