Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

Chaloux v. R. - TCC: Statute-barred year opened - penalties vacated

Dec 02, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This decision combines income tax appeals of Mr. and Mrs. Chaloux for 2005 and 2006 as well as a GST appeal of Mr. Chaloux for the period from February 1, 2005 to December 31, 2006. The subject matter was under-reported income (roughly $88,000) from a partnership operated by the taxpayers (60% Mr. Chaloux, 40% Mrs. Chaloux). There was also considerable discussion of allowable expenses. The main issue however dealt with the opening of the 2005 taxation year (which was otherwise statute-barred) and the imposition of penalties for that year.
Chaloux v. R. - TCC: Statute-barred year opened - penalties vacatedREAD MORE »

Benaroch v. R. - TCC: Crown failed to produce evidence - not allowed a new hearing

Dec 01, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is somewhat of an odd case. Mr. Benaroch was assessed as a director of 4158831 Canada Inc. in respect of unpaid GST of that corporation. At the Tax Court hearing the Crown failed to produce a certificate of the Federal Court showing the corporate debt or a report of the sheriff showing the writ returned unpaid. The Crown then filed a motion for a rehearing in order to produce that evidence (which, it seems, was in the Crown’s possession all along but not disclosed in its list of documents).
Benaroch v. R. - TCC: Crown failed to produce evidence - not allowed a new hearingREAD MORE »

Mattacchione v. R. - TCC: 50-1 Donation flip not a hit in Tax Court

Nov 27, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This may (one can only hope) be one of the last cases dealing with inflated valuations of gifts in kind to charities. The appellants, formerly husband (“Roberto”) and wife (“Vincenzina”), made donations to a registered charity in the period 2003-2005 of hockey sticks and medical supplies. They received donation receipts of roughly $8 million in the case of the wife and $1.5 million in the case of the husband.
Mattacchione v. R. - TCC: 50-1 Donation flip not a hit in Tax CourtREAD MORE »

Vo v. R. - FCA: No extension of time to file notice of objection

Nov 26, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: Ms. Vo’s 2008 taxation year was assessed in 2011. She claimed not to have had notice of the assessment until 2013. Both the Minister and the Tax Court denied her application for an extension of the time to file a notice of objection. The Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the Tax Court and dismissed the appeal from the bench with costs of $300 to the Crown.
Vo v. R. - FCA: No extension of time to file notice of objectionREAD MORE »

Ellis v. R. - TCC: Penalty vacated on subsection 160(1) assessment, transfer from husband

Nov 26, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mrs. Ellis’ husband transferred his 50% interest in their matrimonial home to her at a time when he had an income tax liability. Mrs. Ellis conceded that the transfer was for less than market value. The two points before the Tax Court were the amount of Mr. Ellis’ tax debt at the time of the transfer and the imposition of a gross negligence penalty on Mrs. Ellis.
Ellis v. R. - TCC: Penalty vacated on subsection 160(1) assessment, transfer from husbandREAD MORE »

O’Byrne v. R. - FCA: Tax Court correct to deny extension of time to file notices of objection

Nov 24, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This was an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court in which Justice Boyle had denied the taxpayer’s application for an extension of time to file notices of objection holding that the application was more than 10 years late. The Federal Court of Appeal concurred with Justice Boyle and dismissed the appeal from the bench, but without costs.
O’Byrne v. R. - FCA: Tax Court correct to deny extension of time to file notices of objectionREAD MORE »

Canada (National Revenue) v. McNally - FCA: Court declined to hear moot appeal

Nov 20, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: The underlying issue in this case dealt with the Minister’s power to delay assessing a taxpayer who participated in a large tax shelter. Mr. McNally brought an application to compel the Minister to assess his 2012 tax return and was successful in the Federal Court. The Minister assessed Mr. McNally but also appealed the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. Mr. McNally advised that he would take no part in the appeal since he had obtained what he wanted.
Canada (National Revenue) v. McNally - FCA: Court declined to hear moot appealREAD MORE »

Myers v. R. - TCC: Court rejects evidence husband’s joint interest in home a drafting error

Nov 20, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: Ms. Myers was assessed under subsection 160(1) of the Income Tax Act in respect of the transfer to her by her husband of his share of their home at a time he had an income tax liability. Her defense was that the original acquisition of the home in their joint names was a drafting error and she was always intended to be the sole owner.
Myers v. R. - TCC: Court rejects evidence husband’s joint interest in home a drafting errorREAD MORE »

Mcnally v. R. - FCA: Crown ordered to make submissions on why appeal not moot

Nov 19, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Mcnally moved successfully in the Federal Court for an order requiring the Minister to reassess his 2012 taxation year. The Minister did so but nonetheless appealed the order to the Federal Court of Appeal. Mr. Mcnally advised that he would not participate in the appeal as he regarded the matter as over. The Minister moved for directions. Stratas JA ordered the Minister to make written submissions within 10 days on the issue of mootness. Mr. Mcnally would have 4 days to respond if he chose to do so. There was no order as to costs.
Mcnally v. R. - FCA: Crown ordered to make submissions on why appeal not mootREAD MORE »

Heroux v. R. - FCA: Appeal not setting out any grounds of appeal dismissed

Nov 18, 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: Ms. Heroux appealed a Tax Court decision upholding a subsection 160(1) assessment against her in respect of property transferred to her by her husband. She filed a notice of appeal that simply copied the Federal Court of Appeal form for a notice of appeal and did not set out any specific grounds applicable to her case. The Court of Appeal ordered her to provide specific grounds and she failed to do so. The Crown moved to have the appeal dismissed.
Heroux v. R. - FCA: Appeal not setting out any grounds of appeal dismissedREAD MORE »

Recent Posts

Archives