Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

Duguay v. R. - TCC: Donation to charity in exchange for lower rent not a true gift

Sep 30, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The appellant was living in an apartment owned by a registered charity. He personaly paid for $20,000 in renovations to the apartment. The charity gave him two cheques, each for $10,000 to reimburse his renovation costs. He endorsed one of the cheques back to the charity for which he was issued a $10,000 donation receipt. The receipt was disallowed and he appealed to the Tax Court.
Duguay v. R. - TCC: Donation to charity in exchange for lower rent not a true giftREAD MORE »

van der Steen v. R. - TCC: Unrelated donor to charity could give evidence of donation arrangement

Sep 29, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is a decision on two technical procedural points during the course of a trial involving an alleged charitable donation tax scheme. On the first point the Crown was permitted to call an unrelated donor to the same charity to establish the “workings, scope, extent and duration of” the donation arrangement [para. 1]. However the evidence of that donor was not admissible to determine whether the taxpayer had made the disputed donation.
van der Steen v. R. - TCC: Unrelated donor to charity could give evidence of donation arrangementREAD MORE »

Harder v. R. - TCC: Computerized “netted out” support - no tax credits for second child

Sep 22, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer paid an amount to his former spouse which represented a netting of their individual child support obligations for the two children of the marriage (based on their individual levels of income). The calculation was done by their respective lawyers using a program called “Divorce Mate”. Since the taxpayer was the only person paying support he was not entitled to dependent tax credits in respect of one of the children. Both parents could claim dependent tax credits in respect of one child only where both were actually making payments.
Harder v. R. - TCC: Computerized “netted out” support - no tax credits for second childREAD MORE »

Kvas v. R. - TCC: No subsection 160(1) transfer to shareholders from dissolved corporation

Sep 22, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: This case involved the appeals of the Kvas brothers from subsection 160(1) assessments alleging that each of them had received transfers of property on or about December 31, 2008 from Commercial Interior Alterations Inc. (“CIA”), a corporation of which they had been the shareholders. The difficulty was that CIA had been dissolved in January of 2008, i.e., roughly 11 months before the alleged transfers and 6 years before the issuance of the assessments. The Tax Court was asked to determine whether subsection 160(1) assessments could be raised in respect of a transfer from a non-existent entity.
Kvas v. R. - TCC: No subsection 160(1) transfer to shareholders from dissolved corporationREAD MORE »

Borgstadt v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer was shared-custody parent of older autistic child

Sep 15, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer had two teen-aged children, one of whom, the son, was autistic. She claimed that even though her son divided his time between her home and that of her ex-spouse, she bore the brunt of his special needs and should therefore be entitled to a full Canada Child Tax Credit. CRA limited her claim in the case of both children to 50% of the Canada Child Tax Credit and she appealed to the Tax Court in respect of her son.
Borgstadt v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer was shared-custody parent of older autistic childREAD MORE »

DiCienzo v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer denied ABIL, debt not established to be disposed of or bad

Sep 09, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer claimed an allowable business investment loss (“ABIL”) in 2010 after he and his wife sold their shares in a motor inn they had jointly owned with other shareholders. The taxpayer claimed to have advanced money to the corporation over the years and that the debt owing at the date of the sale was in excess of $500,000.
DiCienzo v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer denied ABIL, debt not established to be disposed of or badREAD MORE »

Rubinov-Liberman v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer was shared-custody parent, only 50% of Child Tax Credit

Sep 09, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The issue was whether the taxpayer was a primary custody parent of her two children during the periods in question or whether she was a shared-custody parent with her former spouse. The Court held that she was a shared-custody parent of both children commencing in March of 2014 but prior to March of 2014 she was not a shared-custody parent of her son. The Minister was directed to revise her decision accordingly. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
Rubinov-Liberman v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer was shared-custody parent, only 50% of Child Tax CreditREAD MORE »

Kalryzian v. R. - TCC: Salesman denied inflated expense claims, rental loss

Sep 08, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Kalryzian, who was self-represented, claimed deductions exceeding 50% of his gross income from his employment as a salesperson in each of the 2007 and 2008 taxation years. CRA denied the bulk of the expense claims, including a claim of roughly $9,000 in 2008 from a partial rental property (he and his girlfriend jointly owned the property and lived in a portion of it). Mr. Kalryzian appealed to the Tax Court.
Kalryzian v. R. - TCC: Salesman denied inflated expense claims, rental lossREAD MORE »

R. v. Watts - OnSCt: Co-founder of Fiscal Arbitrators sentenced to 6 years in prison for fraud

Aug 29, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Watts and his cousin were the co-founders of Fiscal Arbitrators. Many Fiscal Arbitrators cases have been blogged on this site. It was simply a scheme to have taxpayer...
R. v. Watts - OnSCt: Co-founder of Fiscal Arbitrators sentenced to 6 years in prison for fraudREAD MORE »

Granofsky v. R. - TCC: Appeal quashed, settlement agreement binding on taxpayer

Aug 29, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Granofsky, through his former counsel, reached a settlement of his tax appeal. He hired a new counsel who moved to set aside the settlement and the reassessments made in accordance with it. The Crown moved to enforce the minutes of settlement. The Court rejected Mr. Granosky’s arguments that the settlement was made without his authority and quashed the appeal with costs to the Crown.
Granofsky v. R. - TCC: Appeal quashed, settlement agreement binding on taxpayerREAD MORE »

Recent Posts

Archives