Recent Posts

Posts tagged "Income Tax Act"

McKenzie v. R. - TCC: Distribution from US IRA of taxpayer’s deceased mother taxable
Apr 24, 2017 By Bill Innes
Categories:
- Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
- Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning
Précis: Ms. McKenzie received roughly $22,000 from the US IRA of her late mother, who had been a resident of the United States prior to her death (and not a resident of Canada). CRA assessed the amount as income pursuant to clause 56(1)(a)(i)(C.1) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”). Counsel for Ms. McKenzie argued that an alternative method of taxation applied and that the position contended by CRA would result in double taxation (under each of section 56 and section 70) within the provision of paragraph 248(28)(a) of the Act. The Court rejected both arguments.
McKenzie v. R. - TCC: Distribution from US IRA of taxpayer’s deceased mother taxableREAD MORE »
CBS Canada Holdings Co. v. R. - FCA: Affidavit tendered on motion not hearsay evidence - appeal allowed
Apr 24, 2017 By Bill Innes
Categories:
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
Categories:
- Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
- Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning
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 »
Biles Estate v. R. - FC: Court refuses order of mandamus to compel CRA to comply with alleged agreement
Apr 20, 2017 By Bill Innes
Categories:
Précis: This decision involved two applications for judicial review by the same taxpayer. They were heard together. The taxpayer sought an order of mandamus to compel CRA to comply with the terms of an alleged agreement (the “Proposal”) to settle a tax dispute. The Federal Court found that the taxpayer had failed to demonstrate that there in fact was any enforceable agreement with respect to the Proposal. In any event CRA’s conduct was not unreasonable under the circumstances. Both applications were dismissed with costs.
Biles Estate v. R. - FC: Court refuses order of mandamus to compel CRA to comply with alleged agreementREAD MORE »
Struck v. R. - FCA: Taxpayer cannot appeal a consent judgment
Apr 17, 2017 By Bill Innes
Categories:
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 »
BP Canada Energy v. R - FCC: CRA not entitled to internal tax accrual working papers (TAWPs)
Apr 03, 2017 By Bill Innes
Categories:
Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal has reversed the Federal Court’s decision that held that corporate taxpayers can be required to produce their internal tax accrual working papers (“TAMPs”). This may be one of the most important cases in several years on the extent of the power CRA has in gathering private tax information compiled by Canadian businesses. The Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Appeal, who is a noted tax expert, has written an intellectually compelling decision. If the Supreme Court grants leave to appeal, which I think highly likely, it is difficult to predict what the Court will do.
BP Canada Energy v. R - FCC: CRA not entitled to internal tax accrual working papers (TAWPs)READ MORE »
Aeronautic Development Co. v. R - TCC: Taxpayer controlled de facto by non-resident - no ITCs for SRED
Mar 24, 2017 By Bill Innes
Categories:
Précis: The taxpayer claimed refundable SRED investment tax credits (ITCs) in 2009, 2010 and 2011 in connection with the prototyping and certification of an amphibious aircraft known as the Seawind. CRA denied the ITCs on the basis that the taxpayer was under the de facto control of Mr. Richard Silva, who is a non-resident of Canada. Shortly prior to trial CRA added a new argument based on an allegation that the taxpayer was under the de jure control of Seawind Development Corporation (“Seawind Corp.”), a corporation legally controlled by Mr. Silva. The Court rejected the de jure control argument both because it was pleaded too late and on the evidence adduced.
Aeronautic Development Co. v. R - TCC: Taxpayer controlled de facto by non-resident - no ITCs for SREDREAD MORE »
Peach v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer allowed modest business expenses upon reconsideration after FCA appeal
Mar 24, 2017 By Bill Innes
Categories:
Précis: At trial Justice Bocock dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal both on the issue of rental losses and expenses from a financial consulting business. That decision was sustained in the Federal Court of Appeal on the issue of rental losses but reversed on the consulting business and remitted back to the Tax Court for a determination of the reasonableness of the expenses claimed. Justice Bocock made that determination on the basis of the trial record and additional submissions of the parties. He allowed somewhat less than half of the amounts at issue. Costs were awarded to Mr. Peach on the informal procedure Tariff, subject to the right of the parties to make further submissions within 30 days.
Peach v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer allowed modest business expenses upon reconsideration after FCA appealREAD MORE »
Wolsey v. R - TCC: Taxpayer’s delays result in cost award against him - twice the Tariff
Mar 21, 2017 By Bill Innes
Categories:
Précis: Mr. Wolsey’s appeal was dismissed for failure to appear at a status hearing. He moved to set aside that dismissal and the motion was heard over a period of 4 days (August 23 and 24 and September 15 and 16, 2016) and dismissed on October 24, 2016. The Court asked for submissions on costs. Mr. Wolsey did not make any submissions. The Crown asked for costs equal to twice the Tariff plus disbursements. After reserving for several months Justice Graham awarded the Crown what it had asked for, $19,689.
Wolsey v. R - TCC: Taxpayer’s delays result in cost award against him - twice the TariffREAD MORE »
Cooper v. R. - TCC: Justice Bocock recuses himself in KPMG tax plan case after CBC report
Mar 15, 2017 By Bill Innes
Categories:
- Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
- Other
Précis: In a very rare move Justice Bocock has, of his own motion, recused himself in the Cooper decision which involves a tax plan of KPMG and Dentons which plan has been the subject of considerable adverse publicity. CBC reported that Justice Bocock attended a social function in Madrid sponsored by Dentons as part of the recent IFA Conference there. The Canadian Judicial Council (“CJC”) then opened a preliminary investigation of the matter. Justice Bocock referred the matter back to Chief Justice Rossiter, himself the subject of a CJC preliminary investigation.
Cooper v. R. - TCC: Justice Bocock recuses himself in KPMG tax plan case after CBC reportREAD MORE »

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives