Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

Butler v. R. - FCA: Lump sum worker’s compensation award subject to Part I.1 OAS Clawback

Mar 14, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Butler received a lump sum worker’s compensation award from the Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Board. The Minister assessed the Appellant for repayment of the old age security (“OAS”) in the amount of $3,269.00 on the basis that his income for 2012 under Part I.1 (OAS Clawback) included the payment from the Board. Mr. Butler appealed to the Tax Court where he was unsuccessful. He appealed that decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court dismissed his appeal from the bench. There was no order as to costs.
Butler v. R. - FCA: Lump sum worker’s compensation award subject to Part I.1 OAS ClawbackREAD MORE »

Commet v. R. - TCC: Tax Court not bound Superior Courts on child tax credits

Mar 11, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Commet and his former spouse shared custody of their two children on a 50%/50% basis from 2010 until May of 2013 when their daughter started to live on a full time basis with her mother. Mr. Commet claimed tax credits in respect of his daughter for 2013 and they were denied. He appealed to the Tax Court which rejected his appeal on the basis that the “net” amount of support he paid was not the equivalent of support payments for the children being made by both Mr. Commet and his ex-spouse.
Commet v. R. - TCC: Tax Court not bound Superior Courts on child tax creditsREAD MORE »

Donaldson v. R. - TCC: CRA’s computation of terminal loss on change of use correct

Mar 09, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer and his wife converted their personal residence to rental property in 2007 and from rental property to personal residence in 2008. They each claimed a capital loss and a terminal loss in 2008. CRA reduced both losses claimed and the Donaldsons appealed to the Tax Court. The Court struck Mrs. Donaldson’s appeal since her 2008 assessment was a nil assessment. In the case of Mr. Donaldson the Court dismissed his appeal on the basis that CRA’s computations of capital loss and terminal loss were both correct (apart from an understatement of the terminal loss in the amount of $7.99).
Donaldson v. R. - TCC: CRA’s computation of terminal loss on change of use correctREAD MORE »

Loates v. R. - FCA: Section 160 spousal transfer appeal dismissed from the bench

Mar 04, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is an appeal by the taxpayer from a Tax Court decision blogged earlier on this site. Mr. Loates’ spouse had transferred property to him at a time she had an outstanding income tax liability and he was assessed under subsection 160(1) of the Income Tax Act (the “ITA”) with respect to her unpaid income taxes. He was unsuccessful before the Tax Court and appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal where he raised a number of grounds of appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected all of his grounds of appeal and dismissed his appeal from the bench with costs.
Loates v. R. - FCA: Section 160 spousal transfer appeal dismissed from the benchREAD MORE »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

McCarthy v. R. - TCC: Despite objections of taxpayer TCC holds discovery proceedings not “torture”

Feb 23, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. McCarthy was a member of the “Fiscal Arbitrator” group of appellants. This group has flooded the Tax Court with cases in recent year, all unsuccessful. This decision may be the most amusing of the bunch. Mr. McCarthy’s lawyer argued, among other things, that “being compelled to attend at discovery and provide answers under oath constitutes torture as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada” [para. 17]. Not surprisingly Justice Boyle gave this argument short shrift and ordered Mr. McCarthy to comply with his discovery obligations failing which, presumably, his appeal would be dismissed.
McCarthy v. R. - TCC: Despite objections of taxpayer TCC holds discovery proceedings not “torture”READ MORE »

Recent Posts

Archives