Archives - mai 2018

• 

  Barr v. R. – TCC: Payments to brokers to arrange for the sale of a business not exempt from GST/HST as “financial services”

  31 mai 2018 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: The taxpayer was the sole shareholder of Garibaldi Springs Water Company Ltd (“Garibaldi”) and retained the services of two brokers (0922763 B.C. Ltd and P.V. Gordon Holdings Ltd) to arrange a sale of the business. He paid $281,584 in HST on the brokers’ commissions when the sale was completed (as a share sale) and in this appeal sought to recover that amount on the basis that their fees were exempt “financial services” in connection with the transfer of the shares of Garibaldi. The Crown took the position that the brokers were engaged to sell the business in general, not specifically to sell the shares. The Tax Court found that the services of the brokers were not confined to arranging for the transfer of the shares and therefore did not amount to the provision of exempt “financial services”. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
  Barr v. R. – TCC: Payments to brokers to arrange for the sale of a business not exempt from GST/HST as “financial services”Plus >
• 

  DaSilva v. R. – TCC: Tax Court accepts the taxpayer’s evidence that a notice of assessment was not provided to her until August 22, 2016, not sent on January 11, 2013 as alleged by Minister

  30 mai 2018 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: The taxpayer appealed to the Tax Court in respect of a denial of a claim for a GST/HST new housing rebate. The Minister moved to quash the appeal on the basis that the taxpayer’s notice of objection was not filed on a timely basis. The Minister alleged that the notice of assessment was mailed on January 11, 2013. The taxpayer alleged that she did not receive the notice of assessment until it was provided to her on August 22, 2016. The Court accepted the taxpayer’s evidence and allowed the appeal (the Minister conceded that the appeal should be allowed if the appeal was not quashed for late filing).
  DaSilva v. R. – TCC: Tax Court accepts the taxpayer’s evidence that a notice of assessment was not provided to her until August 22, 2016, not sent on January 11, 2013 as alleged by MinisterPlus >
• 

  Duyo v. R. – TCC: Tax Court applies the FCA’s new “accommodation party” rule (Cheema v. Canada) to deny New Housing Rebate

  8 mai 2018 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: This was a classic case of an accommodation party agreeing to facilitate the purchase of a house without intending to reside in it with the actual purchasers. The case was held in abeyance pending the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Cheema which was blogged earlier on this site. Since a majority in Cheema denied the New Housing Rebate in such a circumstance the Tax Court’s hands were tied and the appeal was dismissed. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
  Duyo v. R. – TCC: Tax Court applies the FCA’s new “accommodation party” rule (Cheema v. Canada) to deny New Housing RebatePlus >