DiLalla v. R. – FCA: Decision that production requests overly broad and vague did not disclose reviewable error

Mar 13, 2018 By Bill Innes

Précis: At discovery Mr. DiLalla had asked for three kinds of documents from the Crown, all of which were refused: (1) all policies and interpretations of the Canada Revenue Agency that mention or are in relation to personal endeavours and hobbies, (2) all such documents relating to gross negligence penalties, and (3) Canada Revenue Agency’s policies as to whether a net worth audit should be completed. He appealed that refusal to the Tax Court which declined to order their production on the basis that the requests were overly broad and vague. He appealed the first two categories to the Federal Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal, with costs, as not disclosing a reviewable error.
DiLalla v. R. – FCA: Decision that production requests overly broad and vague did not disclose reviewable errorREAD MORE »

Chaisson v. R. – FCA: Tax Court found RRSP investments ineligible – FCA does not overrule

Jan 12, 2018 By Bill Innes

Précis: Ms. Chaisson transferred funds from her old RRSP to a new one. CRA challenged the transfer on the basis that the investments of the new RRSP were ineligible. The Tax Court dismissed her appeal and she appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found that the decision of the Tax Court did not disclose any reversible errors and dismissed Ms. Chaisson’s appeal with costs.
Chaisson v. R. – FCA: Tax Court found RRSP investments ineligible – FCA does not overruleREAD MORE »

Lynch v. Canada – FCA: Court upholds dismissal of appeal for abuse of process by taxpayer

Jan 09, 2018 By Bill Innes

Précis: The Tax Court dismissed Mr. Lynch’s appeal on the basis of abuse of process after he refused to answer written discovery questions notwithstanding warnings from the Court at two case management hearings. Mr. Lynch appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal which upheld the Tax Court decision, finding no reversible error. The Crown did not seek costs so none were awarded.
Lynch v. Canada – FCA: Court upholds dismissal of appeal for abuse of process by taxpayerREAD MORE »

Industrielle v. Mazraani - FCA: Tax Court Judge violated official language rights - new trial ordered

Apr 27, 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: The worker, Mr. Mazraani, alleged that he did not speak French well. The Tax Court Judge encouraged the counsel for Industrielle and its witnesses to speak English for the most part (with the exception of technical terms). The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Tax Court procedure violated the official language rights of Industrielle, its counsel and its witnesses as well as Mr. Mazraani. The matter was referred back to the Tax Court for a new trial before another judge. The parties did not seek costs and none were awarded.
Industrielle v. Mazraani - FCA: Tax Court Judge violated official language rights - new trial orderedREAD MORE »

CBS Canada Holdings Co. v. R. - FCA: Affidavit tendered on motion not hearsay evidence - appeal allowed

Apr 24, 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer filed an affidavit by a Ms. Toaze, a lawyer for the taxpayer (not a lawyer acting as counsel in the proceedings but a member of the same firm), in a motion to enforce a settlement agreement with CRA. The Crown moved to strike the affidavit. The Tax Court Judge held that the affidavit was hearsay and exercised her discretion to exclude it. The taxpayer appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the Tax Court Judge erred in excluding the affidavit and allowed the appeal with costs both in the Court of Appeal and in the Tax Court.
CBS Canada Holdings Co. v. R. - FCA: Affidavit tendered on motion not hearsay evidence - appeal allowedREAD MORE »

Dicosmo v. R. - FCA: Taxpayer’s failure to plead statute-barring fatal to his appeal

Apr 21, 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer appealed from a decision of the Tax Court denying him certain employment expenses and not permitting him to raise a defence of statute-barring which he had not pleaded (two other grounds of appeal were abandoned). The Federal Court of Appeal found the he had not demonstrated any reviewable error on the denial of employment expenses. With respect to statute-barring, the law was clear: it had to be pleaded. As a result the appeal was dismissed from the bench with costs.
Dicosmo v. R. - FCA: Taxpayer’s failure to plead statute-barring fatal to his appealREAD MORE »

Struck v. R. - FCA: Taxpayer cannot appeal a consent judgment

Apr 17, 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Struck was assessed in respect of the disposition of shares and real property to his son. He appealed to the Tax Court. Subsequently he entered a settlement with the Crown which specified the amounts of both the gain on the disposition of the shares and the real property. His appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal was ultimately confined to his allegation that he was entitled to a reserve on the disposition of real property under section 40 which was not allowed on the consent judgment. The Court of Appeal held that he was not entitled to appeal from the consent judgment where he had agreed on the amount of the gain on the real property and had not claimed any amount for a reserve on that settlement. As a result the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Struck v. R. - FCA: Taxpayer cannot appeal a consent judgmentREAD MORE »

Boroumand v. R. - FCA: Rejection of hearsay evidence by Tax Court reasonable - appeal dismissed

Jan 26, 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is a classic net worth case where Mr. Boroumand reported aggregate income of roughly $40,000 in the years 2003 to 2007 and was reassessed for additional amounts totalling roughly $3.7 million for the same taxation years. The Tax Court decision dismissing his appeal was blogged earlier on this site. In the Federal Court of Appeal Mr. Boroumand was unsuccessful in arguing that the Tax Court Judge should have admitted hearsay evidence of money transfers, holding that the evidence was too inherently unreliable to meet the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
Boroumand v. R. - FCA: Rejection of hearsay evidence by Tax Court reasonable - appeal dismissedREAD MORE »

Barejo Holdings ULC v. R. - FCA: Appeal on meaning of “debt” an “improper use of judicial resources”

Dec 14, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is a decision on appeal from a case that had unusual beginnings in the Tax Court. That decision involved one of the oddest procedures seen in the Tax Court in many years: [1] The question referred to the Court by the parties pursuant to Rule 58 is whether two contracts, entitled Notes and issued for US $998 million by affiliates of two Canadian banks and guaranteed by those banks, which are held by St. Lawrence Trading Inc. (“SLT”), an open-ended investment fund incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands, constitute debt for purposes of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”).
Barejo Holdings ULC v. R. - FCA: Appeal on meaning of “debt” an “improper use of judicial resources”READ MORE »

Coast Capital Savings v. R. - FCA: RRSP Trustee loses appeal of attempt to plead sham

Aug 12, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer was the trustee of RRSPs which allegedly acquired taxable Canadian property from a non-resident in the course of what was alleged to be an RRSP strip. It pleaded that the transaction was a “sham” and also pleaded that the “cost” of the purchased property was not the amount it in fact paid. The Minister moved to strike the paragraphs of the Notice of Appeal containing this pleading and she was successful in the Tax Court. The taxpayer appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal which upheld the Tax Court on both points. Costs were awarded to the Minister.
Coast Capital Savings v. R. - FCA: RRSP Trustee loses appeal of attempt to plead shamREAD MORE »

Recent Posts

Archives