Recent Posts

• 

  Humane Society of Canada Foundation v. R. – FCA: Application for production of documents based on alleged bias and lack of procedural fairness dismissed with costs

  Apr 11, 2018 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

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

  Précis: The appellant brought a motion to compel the production of additional documents by the Crown based on allegations of bias and absence of procedural fairness. Justice Webb found that the allegations were unsupported by evidence and dismissed the application with costs in any event of the cause.
  Humane Society of Canada Foundation v. R. – FCA: Application for production of documents based on alleged bias and lack of procedural fairness dismissed with costsREAD MORE »
• 

  Westsource Group Holdings v. R. – FCA: Failure to provide prescribed information fatal to SRED claims

  Apr 10, 2018 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

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

  Précis: CRA denied the taxpayer certain SRED expenditures claimed on the basis that it had not properly completed all of the information required on a prescribed form. The taxpayer appealed unsuccessfully to the Tax Court. The taxpayer appealed further to the Federal Court of Appeal and its appeal was dismissed from the bench, with costs.
  Westsource Group Holdings v. R. – FCA: Failure to provide prescribed information fatal to SRED claimsREAD MORE »
• 

  Dirani v. R. – FCA: FCA sets aside Tax Court decision where Crown admits prior counsel misinformed the Tax Court

  Apr 05, 2018 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

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

  Précis: While it is not entirely clear from the decision it appears that the Tax Court dismissed Mr. Dirani’s appeal where he did not appear pursuant to a Notice of Hearing. He moved unsuccessfully to set aside that decision. Mr. Dirani appealed that decision to the Federal Court of Appeal where the new Crown counsel informed the Court of Appeal that prior Crown counsel had misinformed the Tax Court that Mr. Dirani was “refusing to accept registered mail.” Accordingly the Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the Tax Court in an opinion rendered from the bench. They ordered that Mr. Dirani’s application remitted to the Tax Court for “determination on a full and complete record” [para. [3]]. There was no order as to costs.
  Dirani v. R. – FCA: FCA sets aside Tax Court decision where Crown admits prior counsel misinformed the Tax CourtREAD MORE »
• 

  Ahlul-Bayt Centre, Ottawa v. R. – FCA: Applicant adduced insufficient evidence of irreparable harm to merit injunctive relief

  Apr 04, 2018 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

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

  Précis: The Centre is a registered charity operating an Islamic school in Ottawa. CRA gave notice of its intention to revoke the Centre’s charitable status. The Centre applied pursuant to paragraph 168(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act and rule 300(b) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 for an order staying that decision. The Federal Court of Appeal applied the test for injunctive relief found in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) [1994] 1 SCR 311, 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC) (“the RJR test”). The Court held that the Centre had not met the second prong of the RJR test, i.e., evidence of irreparable harm. Accordingly the application was dismissed from the bench with costs.
  Ahlul-Bayt Centre, Ottawa v. R. – FCA: Applicant adduced insufficient evidence of irreparable harm to merit injunctive reliefREAD MORE »
• 

  Bauer v. R. – FCA: FCA rejects Charter challenge in Tax Court of documents obtained by requirements during criminal investigation

  Apr 03, 2018 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

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

  Précis: In the Tax Court the taxpayer unsuccessfully sought to strike portions of the Reply that related to documents acquired by the Crown pursuant to requirements. The requirements had been issued by the same CRA investigator who was investigating the taxpayer for possible criminal offences under the Income Tax Act. The taxpayer appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal which dismissed his appeal holding that “it is plain and obvious that the CRA’s power to issue requirements under section 231.2 of the ITA to obtain information or documents that will be used for the administrative purpose of reassessing a taxpayer is not suspended by the commencement of an investigation” [para. [17]]. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
  Bauer v. R. – FCA: FCA rejects Charter challenge in Tax Court of documents obtained by requirements during criminal investigationREAD MORE »
• 

  Peck v. R. – TCC: Gross negligence penalties upheld in another Fiscal Arbitrators case

  Apr 02, 2018 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

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

  Précis: Mr. Peck claimed a business loss of $342,682.13 in 2009 which he used to reduce his 2009 income to nil and carried the balance back to 2008, 2007 and 2006. CRA denied the losses and imposed a gross negligence penalty of $52,852.98. This was a Fiscal Arbitrators case. Mr. Peck sought to vacate the penalty. The Court dismissed the appeal with costs holding that Mr. Peck met the standard of gross negligence.
  Peck v. R. – TCC: Gross negligence penalties upheld in another Fiscal Arbitrators caseREAD MORE »
• 

  Drazin-Bendheim v. R. – TCC: Tax Court invokes “fresh step” rule and declines to strike portions of Crown’s Reply

  Mar 28, 2018 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

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

  Précis: The taxpayer sought to strike those portions of the Crown’s reply that alleged she had failed to report a gain on the disposition of property in 2005 and in so doing made a misrepresentation attributable to neglect, carelessness or willful default. The taxpayer argued that misrepresentation was not raised during the assessment or objection process and those portions of the pleading should be struck on the basis that they may prejudice or delay the fair hearing of the appeal, are scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or are otherwise an abuse of process of the Court. The Court denied the taxpayer’s motion on the basis that the motion was brought after the close of pleadings and after the taxpayer had agreed to a timetable Order. In so doing the Court relied upon Section 8 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (the “Rules) which provide, in part, that a party cannot, without the leave of the Court, attack a document based on an irregularity where the moving party has taken a fresh step in the proceeding after the impugned document was filed. In an evident expression of the Court’s displeasure the motion was dismissed with costs to the Crown in any event of the cause.
  Drazin-Bendheim v. R. – TCC: Tax Court invokes “fresh step” rule and declines to strike portions of Crown’s ReplyREAD MORE »
• 

  Iggillis Holdings v. R. – FCA: FCA upholds advisory “common interest privilege” in tax planning

  Mar 21, 2018 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

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

  Précis: This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Court which held that advisory common interest privilege was not a valid constituent form of solicitor-client privilege and accordingly allowed CRA’s application for the production by Iggillis Holdings of a document known as the “Abacus Memo” which had been produced by a lawyer for a third party and shared with Iggillis during the course of a purchase and sale transaction. The Federal Court of Appeal reversed this decision holding that the Abacus Memo was protected from disclosure by solicitor-client privilege. Thus the appeal was allowed and CRA’s application for production of the Memo was dismissed. The appellants were awarded costs both in the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal.
  Iggillis Holdings v. R. – FCA: FCA upholds advisory “common interest privilege” in tax planningREAD MORE »
• 

  Grubner v. R. – TCC: No ABILs for directors paying unremitted corporate GST/HST and source deductions

  Mar 20, 2018 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

  • Corporate Tax
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  Précis: The Grubner brothers claimed allowable business investment losses (ABILs) in 2012 in respect of $606,000 they had paid directly to CRA in connection with unremitted GST/HST and sources deductions of Bavara Auto Haus Inc. (“Bavara”), a corporation of which they were both directors. Justice Boyle held that there was no evidence that the Grubners acquired a debt or other obligation of Bavara for the purpose of earning income. As a result the two appeals were dismissed with costs.
  Grubner v. R. – TCC: No ABILs for directors paying unremitted corporate GST/HST and source deductionsREAD MORE »
• 

  Hughes v. R. – TCC: Another Tax Court decision upholding a disability tax credit for phenylketonuria (“PKU”)

  Mar 16, 2018 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

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

  Précis: PKU is an incurable lifelong condition which if left untreated can cause a child to suffer permanent severe brain damage. CRA denied Ms. Hughes the disability tax credit for her 15 year old daughter. Ms. Hughes appealed to the Tax Court which allowed her appeal following the example of Justice Jorré in Mullings (reported earlier on this site).
  Hughes v. R. – TCC: Another Tax Court decision upholding a disability tax credit for phenylketonuria (“PKU”)READ MORE »