McKay v. R. - TCC: Subsection 160(1) assessment sustained based on common law relationship

Oct 27, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The appellant was assessed pursuant to subsection 160(1) of the Income Tax Act with respect to the transfer of a 2008 Cadillac Escalade to her by Mr. Henry Wetelainen. The sole question before the Court was whether the taxpayer and Mr. Wetelainen were in a common law relationship that would be subject to the provisions of subsection 160(1). After a lengthy review of the facts and the law the Court concluded that they were in a common law relationship and dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal with costs to CRA.
McKay v. R. - TCC: Subsection 160(1) assessment sustained based on common law relationshipREAD MORE »

Whissell v. R. - FCA: Taxpayer fails in appeal of non-filing penalties

Oct 26, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: This was an appeal from decisions of the Tax Court blogged earlier on this site. Mr. Whissell was assessed for 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 in respect of unreported income. He was assessed non-filing penalties under subsection 163(1) for each of 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. The sole issue before the Tax Court was the imposition of these penalties. The Court held that he had not made out a due diligence defence.
Whissell v. R. - FCA: Taxpayer fails in appeal of non-filing penaltiesREAD MORE »

Mazo v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer taxed on income from pyramid scheme, entitled to deduct costs

Oct 26, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The Taxpayer participated in a pyramid scheme known as Business In Motion International Corporation (“BIMIC”) in 2007, 2008 and 2009. She received proceeds of roughly $90,000 in those years which CRA added to her income and imposed gross negligence penalties. The taxpayer appealed to the Tax Court. The Tax Court concluded that the proceeds were in fact taxable but concluded that the taxpayer should be allowed a deduction for her costs of buying into the scheme. The gross negligence penalties were sustained.
Mazo v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer taxed on income from pyramid scheme, entitled to deduct costsREAD MORE »

Purba v. R. - TCC: Charitable receipts rejected - taxpayer’s evidence unreliable

Oct 25, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer claimed cash charitable donations of roughly $10,000 in 2005 (approximately 25% of his after-tax income) to Christ Apostolic Church International Miracle Centre (“Miracle”) (he also claimed a donation of $21 to another charity). The Court found that the evidence presented by the taxpayer was unreliable and dismissed his appeal. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
Purba v. R. - TCC: Charitable receipts rejected - taxpayer’s evidence unreliableREAD MORE »

Judickas v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer entitled to Canada Child Tax Credits - both parents paid support

Oct 25, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: CRA denied the taxpayer Canada Child Tax Credits in 2009 and 2010. The Taxpayer established that both he and his former wife were paying support. He paid her for four children in her custody and she paid him for two children in his custody. There was no set-off. The Court accepted his evidence and allowed his appeal. There was no order as to costs as this was an informal procedure appeal.
Judickas v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer entitled to Canada Child Tax Credits - both parents paid supportREAD MORE »

Hall v. R. - TCC: No limitation period on excess RRSP contributions where no return filed

Oct 17, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer had over-contributed to his RRSP in the amount of $12,029 by the end of 2008. The Minister subsequently assessed the taxpayer tax, interest and penalties for 2008 to 2013 under Part X.1 of the Act in respect of the over-contributions. At trial CRA waived the penalties. The taxpayer argued unsuccessfully that the 2008 to 2011 years were statute-barred. The Court found that the limitation period under Part X.1 of the Act did not run until the taxpayer filed a return in respect of the over-contributions.
Hall v. R. - TCC: No limitation period on excess RRSP contributions where no return filedREAD MORE »

Carpenter v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer out of time for extension of time to file Notice of Appeal

Oct 17, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer failed to file returns for 1999 to 2002. In 2004 she was assessed for each of those years and did not file a notice of objection. In 2013 she filed returns for 1999-2012. The 2003-2012 returns were assessed as filed but the 1999-2002 returns were returned to her and not further assessed. She filed a notice of objection in 2013 to the years 1999 to 2012. On March 3, 2015 CRA confirmed its position. On May 9, 2016 the taxpayer filed an application to extend the time to file a Notice of Appeal but it was not perfected (by inclusion of a draft Notice of Appeal) until June 7, 2016.
Carpenter v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer out of time for extension of time to file Notice of AppealREAD MORE »

2087028 Ontario Inc. v. R. - TCC: Bank transfers from relatives not unreported business income

Oct 07, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer was owned by Ms. Lin and operated an immigration consulting business for Chinese immigrants. It was reassessed for its 2012 and 2013 taxation years by adding alleged unreported income of $84,966 and $95,770. That income represented 6 bank transfers to Ms. Lin by various members of her family. The Crown alleged that the bank transfers were disguised income from the immigration business of 2087028 Ontario Inc. The Court heard evidence from Ms. Lin and her family members who had transferred the funds.
2087028 Ontario Inc. v. R. - TCC: Bank transfers from relatives not unreported business incomeREAD MORE »

Mpamugo v. R. - TCC: Fraudster’s claim that he never received reassessments for $6.8M rejected

Oct 06, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Mpamugo was convicted and imprisoned for several years for running a fraudulent scheme to permit non-students to obtain student loans. CRA reassessed him in connection with the scheme for $6.8 million over the period from 1998 to 1999. He filed appeals with the Tax Court. CRA moved to dismiss the appeals on the basis that no notices of objection had ever been filed. Mr. Mpamugo moved to quash his own appeals on the basis that he had never received the notices of reassessment.
Mpamugo v. R. - TCC: Fraudster’s claim that he never received reassessments for $6.8M rejectedREAD MORE »

Quinco Financial Inc. v. R. - TCC: Interest on GAAR assessment not limited to period after assessment

Oct 05, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: In J.K. Read Engingeering Ltd. v. The Queen (October 21, 2014 – 2014 TCC 309, Hogan J.), a case blogged earlier on this site, the Tax Court held that in the case of a GAAR assessment interest ran from the payment date for the taxation year being assessed not from the date of the assessment. The taxpayer in this case took another run at the issue asking the Court to revisit the matter in an application on a point of law under section 58 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure). It came as no great surprise that the taxpayer’s submissions were again rejected.
Quinco Financial Inc. v. R. - TCC: Interest on GAAR assessment not limited to period after assessmentREAD MORE »

Recent Posts

Archives