Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

Daszkiewicz v. R. - TCC: Gross negligence penalties affirmed - fictitious business losses

Feb 23, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Another fictitious business loss case where the only issue was the imposition of gross negligence penalties with respect to fictitious business losses. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Daszkiewicz v. R. - TCC: Gross negligence penalties affirmed - fictitious business lossesREAD MORE »

Ghaffar v. R. - FCA: Appeal dismissed - no reversible error in Tax Court

Feb 18, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Graham J. of the Tax Court dismissed Mr. Ghaffar’s application to set aside a previous decision dismissing his appeal for failure to appear at a status hearing. Mr. Ghaffar appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the Bench, finding no reversible error.
Ghaffar v. R. - FCA: Appeal dismissed - no reversible error in Tax CourtREAD MORE »

Maynard v. R. - TCC: Gross negligence penalties affirmed - fictitious business losses

Feb 18, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Another fictitious business loss case where the only issue was the imposition of a gross negligence penalty, in this case on both husband and wife who had both claimed fictitious losses. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Maynard v. R. - TCC: Gross negligence penalties affirmed - fictitious business lossesREAD MORE »

Brathwaite v. R. - TCC: Gross negligence penalties deleted in part - fictitious business losses

Feb 16, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Another fictitious business loss case where the only issue was the imposition of a gross negligence penalties to various taxation years. In an unusual twist Ms. Brathwaite was successful in having the largest penalty (2008) deleted. Her co-appellant, Mr. Thompson had his penalty for 2008 deleted. The appeals were allowed in part with one set of costs to the Crown in the amount of 60% of the Tariff.
Brathwaite v. R. - TCC: Gross negligence penalties deleted in part - fictitious business lossesREAD MORE »

Chaudhry v. R. - TCC: Income Tax Act properly before the Court (strange taxpayer argument)

Feb 16, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer’s agent made a very eccentric argument: the Minister had not produced a certified copy of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) nor had respondent’s counsel made a request of the Clerk of the Senate for a copy. The Court made short work of the argument and dismissed the appeal. There were no costs as it was an informal procedure appeal.
Chaudhry v. R. - TCC: Income Tax Act properly before the Court (strange taxpayer argument)READ MORE »

Eshan v. R. - TCC: Small cleaning service skewered by CRA

Feb 10, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Ehsan ran a small cleaning service and did odd jobs on the side. CRA did an indirect audit and increased his income by $16,504 and $1,940 in 2008 and 2009, respectively. It also disallowed expenses totalling $12,494 (48%) and $18,202 (65%) in the same respective years. Before the Tax Court he was represented by his daughter who does not appear to have been a lawyer or accountant. Mr. Ehsan had to testify through an interpreter. At the commencement of trial the Crown made a number of concessions:
Eshan v. R. - TCC: Small cleaning service skewered by CRAREAD MORE »

Ramlal v. R. - TCC: Gross negligence penalty affirmed - fictitious business loss

Feb 08, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Another fictitious business loss case where the only issue was the imposition of a gross negligence penalty (the amount of the penalty does not appear in the decision). The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Ramlal v. R. - TCC: Gross negligence penalty affirmed - fictitious business lossREAD MORE »

Mallette v. R. - TCC: Gross negligence penalty affirmed - fictitious business loss

Feb 08, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Another fictitious business loss case where the only issue was the imposition of a gross negligence penalty (the amount of the penalty does not appear in the decision). The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Mallette v. R. - TCC: Gross negligence penalty affirmed - fictitious business lossREAD MORE »

Marra v. R. - TCC: Director’s resignation served on corporation’s lawyer effective

Feb 05, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Ms. Marra was a director of Sani-Clean Systems Incorporated (“Sani-Clean”) and, as such, was assessed for unremitted GST of Sani-Clean and unremitted amounts under the Income Tax Act. She appealed to the Tax Court which accepted her evidence that she had given her resignation to Claudio Polsinelli, who acted as the lawyer for Sani-Clean, more than two years prior to the date of the assessment. The Crown took the position that the resignation was ineffective.
Marra v. R. - TCC: Director’s resignation served on corporation’s lawyer effectiveREAD MORE »

Mcdonald v. R. - FCA: No reversible error in Tax Court - appeal dismissed from bench

Feb 05, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: This was an appeal from a decision of Rip J. in the Tax Court who upheld a subsection 160(1) transferee assessment against Ms. Mcdonald on the basis that she had received funds from her husband at a time when he owed income tax and that she hid those funds in a new account she opened. The appeal was dismissed from the bench in three paragraphs; costs were awarded to the Crown of $1,000, all-inclusive.
Mcdonald v. R. - FCA: No reversible error in Tax Court - appeal dismissed from benchREAD MORE »

Recent Posts

Archives