Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

Fisher v. R. - FCA: Taxpayer failed to establish debt was bad - appeal dismissed

Dec 17, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal on appeal from a Tax Court decision blogged earlier on this site. The Tax Court Judge found that Ms. Fisher failed to establish that a debt owing to her was uncollectible by the end of 2004. The decision, which was rendered from the bench, found that the Tax Court Judge did not err in concluding that the taxpayer failed to establish the debt in question was bad.
Fisher v. R. - FCA: Taxpayer failed to establish debt was bad - appeal dismissedREAD MORE »

Okeke v. R. - TCC: No charitable deduction - deficient receipts

Dec 16, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer claimed to have made donations of $9,800 in 2008 to two related charities. CRA disallowed $9,000 of the donations (it accepted $800 that was proven by means of a canceled cheque) because it did not accept the taxpayer’s evidence that he had made the donations in cash and because the receipts he produced were not in accordance with the Regulations under the Income Tax Act. His appeal to the Tax Court was unsuccessful.
Okeke v. R. - TCC: No charitable deduction - deficient receiptsREAD MORE »

Hines v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer an employee - not entitled to deduct expenses

Dec 16, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: In 2008 Mr. Hines worked for Wellspring Energy Solutions Ltd. (“Wellspring”) from which he received $88,298 (the “Amount”). His work for Wellspring involved the development of an oil well pump. He claimed that he was not an employee of Wellspring and that the Amount included the reimbursement of expenses he incurred on behalf of the company. The Minister assessed on the basis that he was an employee and did not allow the deduction of the expenses Mr. Hines claimed he paid as he produced no records to document them.
Hines v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer an employee - not entitled to deduct expensesREAD MORE »

Pilgrim v. R - TCC: Incomplete address on assessments - objections not filed late

Dec 15, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer’s reassessments for 2009 and 2010 and his assessment for 2011 were mailed in 2012 to a large residential complex where he lived but they did not specify the unit number. He claimed that he had never received them. He brought an application in the Tax Court to extend the time to file notices of objection. The Court held that his notice of objection was timely since he had never actually been mailed the reassessments and assessment in question. Thus the application was dismissed but Mr. Pilgrim got an order declaring that his notices of objection were timely.
Pilgrim v. R - TCC: Incomplete address on assessments - objections not filed lateREAD MORE »

Chartrand v. R. - TCC: Gross negligence penalties on fictitious losses - Take #1

Dec 11, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is another case involving fictitious losses and the group known as Fiscal Abitrators. The sole issue before the Court was the imposition of gross negligence penalties (the federal penalties alone totalled $54,496.62). The Court reviewed the facts including the educational and occupational background of Mr. Chartrand and concluded that the penalties were justified. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Chartrand v. R. - TCC: Gross negligence penalties on fictitious losses - Take #1READ MORE »

Spurvey v. R. - TCC: Gross negligence penalties on fictitious losses - Take #2

Dec 10, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is another decision on fictitious losses released on the same day as the Chartrand decision blogged earlier on this site. In this case the facts were slightly more bizarre. The tax preparers peddling the scheme were only identified by first names and told the Mr. and Mrs. Spurvey that they were entitled to a tax holiday by virtue of a prior constitutional amendment. Again the only issue before the Court was the imposition of penalties.
Spurvey v. R. - TCC: Gross negligence penalties on fictitious losses - Take #2READ MORE »

Moerman v. R. - TCC: Hospital chaplain entitled to clergy residence deduction

Dec 08, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: The appellant acted as a chaplain for a number of hospitals in the Lethbridge area in Alberta. He and his wife owned a corporation, John Moerman Enterprises Ltd. (“JME”) which paid him $24,000 in 2012. That payment was entirely derived from donations from the community in respect of his chaplaincy. He also received an honorarium from from Alberta Health Services (“AHS”) in the amount of $13,836.14. He claimed the clergy residence deduction pursuant to paragraph 8(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) in respect of both amounts but CRA denied the deduction in respect of the payment from JME.
Moerman v. R. - TCC: Hospital chaplain entitled to clergy residence deductionREAD MORE »

Zoccole v. R. - FCA: “Connecting factors” test determines whether income from Reserve

Dec 08, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This was an appeal from a Tax Court decision blogged earlier on this site under the name Baldwin v. The Queen, 2014 TCC 284. The case dealt with the appellants’ claim to an exemption under paragraph 87(a)(b) of the Indian Act in respect of income earned on a Reserve. The Tax Court held that the income in question was not connected with a reserve and dismissed the appeals. Three of the appellants appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal.
Zoccole v. R. - FCA: “Connecting factors” test determines whether income from ReserveREAD MORE »

Tuccaro v. R. - TCC: Court dismisses cross motions on Treaty 8 status

Dec 07, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is a decision on two conflicting motions: [1] The Respondent (the “Crown”) has brought a motion seeking an Order pursuant to section 58 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (the “Rules”) to determine the following question: Is the Appellant [Mr. Tuccaro] precluded from re-litigating the issue of whether his income is exempt from income taxation pursuant to Treaty 8, on the basis of issue estoppel? [2] The Appellant has brought a motion seeking an Order pursuant to sections 48 and 53 of the Rules to strike certain portions of the Crown’s Reply to the Amended Notice of Appeal.
Tuccaro v. R. - TCC: Court dismisses cross motions on Treaty 8 statusREAD MORE »

Kuchta v. R. - TCC: Subsection 160(1) extends to RRSP designations

Dec 03, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: The appellant’s spouse, Matthew Juba, died in 2007. Some time prior to his death he had designated the appellant as the sole beneficiary of his RRSPs and, as a result, she received roughly $305,000 after his death from the RRSPs. At the date of his death Mr. Juba owed roughly $55,000 in income tax for his 2006 taxation year. CRA assessed Ms. Kuchta pursuant to subsection 160(1) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) in respect of the transfer from the RRSPs.
Kuchta v. R. - TCC: Subsection 160(1) extends to RRSP designationsREAD MORE »

Recent Posts

Archives