Tuccaro v. R. - FCA: Court of Appeal upholds Tax Court decision to let issue estoppel argument go to trial

Nov 01, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is the fourth time this case has been blogged on this site. In a nutshell, Mr. Tuccaro is asserting a treaty right to a tax exemption pursuant to Treaty 8 of 1899. The Crown is resisting the claim based in part on issue estoppel arising from prior decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal. Mr. Tuccaro moved unsuccessfully in the Tax Court to strike those portions of the Crown’s pleadings dealing with issue estoppel.
Tuccaro v. R. - FCA: Court of Appeal upholds Tax Court decision to let issue estoppel argument go to trialREAD MORE »

Bradwick Property v. R. - FC: Taxpayer’s counsel not entitled to unredacted documents

Oct 28, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The applicant brought 11 judicial review applications seeking to review CRA’s refusal to provide unredacted information pursuant to applications made by the applicant under the Access to Information Act during the course of a notice of objection process under the Income Tax Act. All of the judicial review applications were consolidated in this decision. CRA moved to file unredacted copies of the disputed materials with the Court and for an order denying counsel for the applicant access to the unredacted materials.
Bradwick Property v. R. - FC: Taxpayer’s counsel not entitled to unredacted documentsREAD MORE »

Morrison v. R. - FCA: Lead case appellant not entitled to information about all others

Oct 28, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Morrison was one of the lead appellants in a charitable tax shelter case. He unsuccessfully sought information about all of the other tax shelter participants in a motion before the Tax Court. He appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal and was similarly unsuccessful. His appeal was dismissed with costs.
Morrison v. R. - FCA: Lead case appellant not entitled to information about all othersREAD MORE »

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 »

Perry v. R. - TCC: Court rejects dubious charitable donation receipts

Oct 19, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: In 2005 and 2006 the taxpayer claimed large (as a proportion of his income) charitable donations to a charity that was de-registered in 2007. The Court found the taxpayer’s evidence unacceptable and self-contradictory. The receipts at issue were at odds with the taxpayer’s testimony and otherwise deficient. The appeal was dismissed. There was no order as to costs as this was an informal procedure appeal.
Perry v. R. - TCC: Court rejects dubious charitable donation receiptsREAD 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 »

Recent Posts

Archives