Heron v. R. - TCC: Limited portions of the Crown’s Reply struck

May 12, 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: In its Reply the Crown pleaded that the taxpayer had been involved in criminal activity for which he was charged and convicted. The taxpayer moved to strike the impugned portions of the Reply. The taxpayer was modestly successful in that two paragraphs were struck that were pleadings of argument, and not fact. In addition one paragraph detailing the sentence the taxpayer received in the criminal proceeding was struck. The balance of the impugned pleading was not struck. There was no order as to costs.
Heron v. R. - TCC: Limited portions of the Crown’s Reply struckREAD MORE »

AG Shield Ltd. v. R. - TCC: Salary paid to main shareholders was SRED expense

May 11, 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: Tom and Gary McCrae each owned 50% of the shares of the taxpayer. The taxpayer paid each of them salary of $30 per hour based on the number of hours they spend in SRED activities. They did not receive salary for the time they spent in other corporate activities but did receive equal amounts of dividends each year. CRA pro-rated the SRED treatment based on total hours spend by each of them and the taxpayer appealed to the Tax Court. The Tax Court found that the amounts of salary claimed by the taxpayer fell within the definition of SRED and did not have to be pro-rated between SRED and non-SRED activities. The appeal was therefore allowed with costs.
AG Shield Ltd. v. R. - TCC: Salary paid to main shareholders was SRED expenseREAD MORE »

Huneault v. R. - TCC: Shared custody - father cannot claim one dependant if mother does not also pay support

May 11, 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is yet another case where in a joint custody arrangement only one parent pays support. The Courts have established clear precedent that in such cases the payor parent is not entitled to treat one of the children as a dependant for tax purposes. Justice Boyle simply applied that precedent and dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal. There was no order as to costs as this was an informal procedure appeal.
Huneault v. R. - TCC: Shared custody - father cannot claim one dependant if mother does not also pay supportREAD MORE »

Fink v. R. - FCA: Applicant entitled to ask questions about other remission order applicants in stock option plan

May 10, 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Fink applied for a remission order in connection with the taxation of stock option benefits. He applied for judicial review of a decision of the Assistant Commissioner of the CRA refusing to recommend that the Governor in Council issue a remission order. During the course of that application Mr. Fink’s counsel sought to cross-examine on affidavits filed on behalf of CRA. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Mr. Fink’s counsel could put 5 questions related to remission applications filed by other taxpayers. The Federal Court Judge directed CRA to answer the questions and CRA appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. On appeal the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, with costs, holding that the questions were proper.
Fink v. R. - FCA: Applicant entitled to ask questions about other remission order applicants in stock option planREAD MORE »

Thangarajah v. R. - TCC: Letter from taxpayers’ agent not a request for extension of time

May 10, 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayers sought an extension of the time to file Notices of Objection for the 2011 and 2012 taxation years in respect of Notices of Reassessment issued in November of 2014. The sole question before the Court was whether a letter dated September 10, 2015 from the taxpayers’ agent could be construed as an application to extend the time to file a notice of objection. The Minister did not accept the letter as such an application and the Court agreed that it could not be so construed. Since no application had been made to the Minister within the statutory limitation period the extension application was dismissed. There was no order as to costs.
Thangarajah v. R. - TCC: Letter from taxpayers’ agent not a request for extension of timeREAD MORE »

Beima v. R. - FCA: Appellant failed to adduce grounds for setting aside a compliance order

May 09, 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: CRA sought and obtained a compliance order in the Federal Court after Mr. Beima interfered with the conduct of an audit in various ways, e.g., attempting to limit the number of persons working on the audit, refusing to allow the making of copies, etc. Mr. Beima appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal and the appeal was dismissed from the bench, with costs, on the basis that Mr. Beima had failed to demonstrate any reversible error on the part of the Federal Court Judge.
Beima v. R. - FCA: Appellant failed to adduce grounds for setting aside a compliance orderREAD MORE »

Costanzo v. R. - TCC: Fees paid to “associate musicians” not deductible

May 09, 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Costanzo was a musician. After a number of smaller items were settled, the only remaining issue in this appeal was the deduction of amounts paid to “associate musicians” who were very close friends of Mr. Costanzo. The Court found that Mr. Costanzo had not proven the payment of the amounts in question and dismissed the appeal. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
Costanzo v. R. - TCC: Fees paid to “associate musicians” not deductibleREAD MORE »

Smith v. R. - TCC: Jazz flight attendant - airport parking pass was a taxable benefit

May 02, 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer was a flight attendant with Jazz. CRA included in his income for 2011 $504 in respect of a benefit from a parking pass at Calgary airport. Mr. Smith appealed to the Tax Court which dismissed his appeal, finding that the parking pass was a benefit from employment. There was no order as to costs as this was an informal procedure appeal.
Smith v. R. - TCC: Jazz flight attendant - airport parking pass was a taxable benefitREAD MORE »

Foote v. R. - TCC: Professional investment advisor’s personal trades were on income account

May 01, 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Foote spend his entire career in the investment business rising to the co-head of institutional trading for a large Canadian full-service brokerage firm. In 2009 he treated all of his personal trading (with the exception of short positions) as being on capital account (roughly a gain of $550,000). CRA assessed him as a trader and he appealed to the Tax Court. The evidence was simply overwhelming that Mr. Foote was a trader and not an investor. His multiple transactions and short trading times essentially shone a neon light on his activities. While his counsel obviously put up a very good fight, to an objective observer the result was inevitable. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Foote v. R. - TCC: Professional investment advisor’s personal trades were on income accountREAD MORE »

Freitas v. R. - TCC: Amount paid to retired accountant not a “retiring allowance” and subject to CPP contributions

Apr 25, 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Freitas retired from Deloitte & Touche LLP on May 31, 2007. He received a distribution from Deloitte in 2008 which he thought was a retiring allowance and therefore not subject to CPP contributions. He was reassessed by CRA in respect of CPP contributions on the amount and appealed to the Tax Court. The Tax Court held that the disputed amount was not a retiring allowance and therefore was subject to CPP contributions. Mr. Freitas was also unsuccessful in an attempt to introduce new evidence after the conclusion of the hearing. Accordingly his appeal was dismissed. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
Freitas v. R. - TCC: Amount paid to retired accountant not a “retiring allowance” and subject to CPP contributionsREAD MORE »

Recent Posts

Archives