Archives - avril 2020

• 

  Lilyfield Development Inc. v. R. – TCC: Appeal of a dissolved corporation quashed (after neglecting Court’s suggestion to apply for a corporate revival)

  16 avril 2020 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Corporate Tax
  • Federal Income Tax

  Précis: The Crown brought a motion to quash this appeal on the ground that the taxpayer corporation had been dissolved and did not have the capacity to pursue an appeal. The Court essentially gave the taxpayer 30 days to seek a revival and when it failed to do so granted the Crown’s motion and quashed the appeal with costs to the Crown.
  Lilyfield Development Inc. v. R. – TCC: Appeal of a dissolved corporation quashed (after neglecting Court’s suggestion to apply for a corporate revival)Plus >
• 

  Gentile Holdings Ltd. v. R. – TCC: Dividends paid to taxpayer subject to a valid non-arm’s length assessment under subsection 160(1) of the ITA

  14 avril 2020 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Corporate Tax
  • Federal Income Tax

  Précis: The taxpayer received a dividend in the amount of $600,000 in 2006 from its subsidiary corporation, 0699406 B.C. Ltd. (“0699”). The Minister assessed the taxpayer under subsection 160(1) in respect of the non-arm’s length transfer. The taxpayer resisted the assessment both on the basis that the relationship with 0699 was at arm’s length and that it gave consideration for the dividend in the form of a loan back to 0699. The Tax Court rejected both arguments and dismissed the appeal with costs.
  Gentile Holdings Ltd. v. R. – TCC: Dividends paid to taxpayer subject to a valid non-arm’s length assessment under subsection 160(1) of the ITAPlus >
• 

  Peach v. R. – TCC: Taxpayer denied business losses on rental property, must include gain on transfer of property to son

  9 avril 2020 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  Précis: The taxpayer claimed business losses on real property owned by him in 2011. He also claimed losses from a financial services business carried on by him under the name Harold’s Financial Services (“HFS”) in 2011. (He had unsuccessfully appealed the same points in respect of his 2009 and 2010 taxation years in a prior appeal before both the Tax Court and the Federal Court of Appeal.) Finally he did not report a gain ($14,437) on a property disposed of by him to his son (for what CRA alleged was less than fair market value). The Tax Court accepted CRA’s position on both points and dismissed the appeal. There was no award of costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
  Peach v. R. – TCC: Taxpayer denied business losses on rental property, must include gain on transfer of property to sonPlus >
• 

  Sweetman v. R. – TCC: Taxpayer in a Global Learning Gift Initiative appeal ordered to pay $19,375 as security for costs

  9 avril 2020 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  Précis: ​The taxpayer participated in the Global Learning Gift Initiative which had previously been litigated unsuccessfully by taxpayer participants in various Tax Court appeals. Mr. Sweetman chose to pursue his appeal independently of the earlier decisions and the Crown asked for security for costs in the amount of $19,375. The Tax Court found that the Crown’s request was reasonable and ordered the security paid in three installments. There were no costs awarded on the motion.
  Sweetman v. R. – TCC: Taxpayer in a Global Learning Gift Initiative appeal ordered to pay $19,375 as security for costsPlus >
• 

  Blais v. R. – FCA: Taxpayer’s appeal from Tax Court dismissed with costs – replacement of tools did not give rise to allowable business investment losses

  3 avril 2020 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  Précis: Mr. Blais was unsuccessful in the Tax Court on his appeals of 2006, 2008 and 2009 (his 2007 appeal was quashed on consent since it was an appeal of a nil assessment). The Court of Appeal rejected Mr. Blais’ claim of allowable business investment losses and “eligible relocation” expenses since they did not fall within the four corners of the statute. It also rejected his wild claims of institutional bias because the judiciary was paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Thus the appeal was dismissed with costs.
  Blais v. R. – FCA: Taxpayer’s appeal from Tax Court dismissed with costs – replacement of tools did not give rise to allowable business investment lossesPlus >