Federal Income Tax | GetTaxNetPro

Elbadawi v. R. - FCA: Appeals of Tax Court decision and costs award dismissed from bench

Mar 04, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Elbadawi appealed to the Tax Court in connection with the assessment of unreported shareholder benefits against him, his wife and his son. The trial lasted 10 days. His wife’s appeal was successful and his son’s appeal was partly successful. Mr. Elbadawi was however completely unsuccessful and the Court awarded costs in the amount of $86,240.14 against him to sanction his conduct during the course of the trial. He appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal but did not meet with any luck there either. His appeal of his tax liability was dismissed from the bench. Similarly his appeal of the costs award in the Tax Court was dismissed. The Crown was awarded costs in both appeals.
Elbadawi v. R. - FCA: Appeals of Tax Court decision and costs award dismissed from benchREAD MORE »

William B. Huxham Inc. v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer denied ABIL - inadequate proof of debt

Mar 03, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The appellant corporation claimed allowable business investment losses in 2008 and a resulting loss carry forward in 2009:
William B. Huxham Inc. v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer denied ABIL - inadequate proof of debtREAD MORE »

R. v. Lee - FCA: FCA reverses Federal Court and issues compliance order - section 231.7

Mar 03, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The Federal Court denied CRA’s application for a compliance order under section 231.7 of the Income Tax Act ( the “ITA”) in respect of a requirement for information issued to Mr. Lee on the basis that it was overbroad and vague. The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the Federal Court and issued the compliance order sought by CRA. CRA was awarded costs both in the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.
R. v. Lee - FCA: FCA reverses Federal Court and issues compliance order - section 231.7READ MORE »

Genest v. The Queen - TCC: Section 160 assessment of remuneration allegedly paid to wife upheld

Mar 02, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Ms. Genest was assessed under section 160 with amounts totaling $45,000 transferred to her by businesses controlled by her partner, Martin Tremblay, at a time when he had a substantial income tax liability:
Genest v. The Queen - TCC: Section 160 assessment of remuneration allegedly paid to wife upheldREAD MORE »

6051944 Canada Inc. v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer allowed GST ITCs on management fees

Mar 02, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The appellant claimed, and was denied, GST input tax credits (ITC’s) on management fees paid to related corporations. The appellant appealed the denial of ITCs to the Tax Court:
6051944 Canada Inc. v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer allowed GST ITCs on management feesREAD MORE »

Raymond v. R. - TCC: Gross negligence penalties affirmed

Mar 01, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Ms. Raymond and her spouse, Mr. Ludlow, operated a variety of businesses as well as a partnership. They were each assessed gross negligence penalties with respect to under-reported income in 2006 and 2007. The partnership was also assessed gross negligence penalties in respect of over-stated GST input tax credits during the same period. The Court affirmed the imposition of the penalties.
Raymond v. R. - TCC: Gross negligence penalties affirmedREAD MORE »

Lalande v. R. - TCC: Husband working for wife’s company denied EI benefits

Mar 01, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Lalande worked for a corporation controlled by his wife. When his employment was terminated on May 2, 2014 he applied for EI benefits. The benefits were denied on the basis that he was not engaged in insurable employment since the terms and conditions of his employment were not similar to arm’s length employment. He appealed to the Tax Court. The Tax Court concluded that the terms of his employment were not arm’s length and dismissed the appeal.
Lalande v. R. - TCC: Husband working for wife’s company denied EI benefitsREAD MORE »

Wholistic Child and Family Services v. R. - TCC: Child and Youth Care worker subject to EI/CPP

Feb 29, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Hyacinth Dunkley was a professional Child and Youth Care worker who was placed by Wholistic with its clients. The question before the Court was whether she was subject to CPP and EI. The Court found that for CPP purposes her position was analogous to employment and for EI purposes she functioned under the direction and control of clients of Wholistic. Accordingly the appeals were both dismissed.
Wholistic Child and Family Services v. R. - TCC: Child and Youth Care worker subject to EI/CPPREAD MORE »

Waters v. R. - TCC: Court accepts worker’s evidence of insurable hours of employment

Feb 29, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Waters was a substitute teacher. His claim for EI benefits was denied because his employer reported that he had 674 hours rather than the 700 hour minimum required. He gave evidence that his actual hours were 763. The Court accepted his evidence and allowed his appeal.
Waters v. R. - TCC: Court accepts worker’s evidence of insurable hours of employmentREAD MORE »

Weinberg Family Trust v. R. - TCC: TCC has no jurisdiction to determine residence for Ontario tax

Feb 25, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The Weinberg Family Trust filed in 2007 to 2010 as a resident of Albert. The Minister reassessed on the basis that the Trust was a resident of Ontario and applied gross negligence penalties. The Trust filed appeals both with the Tax Court and the Ontario Superior Court. The Crown moved to quash the notice of appeal in the Tax Court. The Tax Court held it had no jurisdiction to determine the residence of a trust for Ontario income tax purposes, nor to examine the imposition of Ontario penalties and quashed the notice of appeal with costs to the Crown.
Weinberg Family Trust v. R. - TCC: TCC has no jurisdiction to determine residence for Ontario taxREAD MORE »

Archives - 2016

Archives