Kim v. R. - TCC: Net worth assessments and gross negligence penalties sustained in large part

Aug 11, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. and Mrs. Kim operated a laundry and dry-cleaning business as equal partners. They were reassessed for unreported business income in the 2010 and 2011 taxation years on a net worth basis. Gross negligence penalties were sustained. There was no order as to costs since these were informal procedure appeals.
Kim v. R. - TCC: Net worth assessments and gross negligence penalties sustained in large partREAD MORE »

Pirart v. R. - TCC: Assessment based on income from drug sales sustained in part

Aug 10, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Pirart was assessed unreported income in the amounts of $1,050,000 for 2005, $1,200,000 for 2006, $1,350,000 for 2007, and $1,500,000 for 2008, mostly from an alleged cocaine business; in addition he was assessed for gross negligence penalties on the unreported income. The Tax Court accepted his evidence that the cocaine was the property of his former partner, Wendy Anderson (since deceased), and allowed the appeal with respect to that income. It dismissed the appeal with respect to his income in the amount of $32,400 from a marihuana business in 2007 and 2008 and sustained the penalties on that unreported income. There was no order as to costs since success was mixed.
Pirart v. R. - TCC: Assessment based on income from drug sales sustained in partREAD MORE »

Margeau v. R. - TCC: Appellant entitled to small amount of Canada Child Tax Benefit

Aug 10, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer claimed Canada Child Tax Benefits for both children of her former marriage. CRA denied most of the Benefits on the basis that the taxpayer and her ex-spouse were shared-custody parents during most of the period. In the end it boiled down to a question of credibility and the Tax Court preferred the evidence of the father, i.e., that the children were primarily in his custody during the period in question. The mother was held however to have had sole custody of one of the children during the month of July, 2014.
Margeau v. R. - TCC: Appellant entitled to small amount of Canada Child Tax BenefitREAD MORE »

Copeland v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer liable under subsection 160(1) for transfer from related corporation

Aug 09, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Copeland received cheques totally $111,000 from a related corporation, Tradepro, at a time when it was a tax debtor. As a result he was assessed under subsection 160(1) for the amount of tax debt of Tradepro at the date of the transfer. Mr. Copeland testified that the cheques were partial repayment of a loan made by his late father (who also used the same middle name, Blaine) to a predecessor corporation of Tradepro and that he held the funds as the agent of his father. Unfortunately for Mr. Copeland the Court did not accept his evidence or that of his bookkeeper and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Copeland v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer liable under subsection 160(1) for transfer from related corporationREAD MORE »

Gorman v. R. - TCC: Shares acquired by RRSP not qualified investments, penalties sustained

Aug 09, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer was persuaded by a promoter to acquire shares of 629900 Saskatchewan Ltd. (“629900”) in her RRSP. She relied upon the promoter’s promises of a 50% to 100% return on her investment within one to two years. CRA assessed her on the basis that the shares were not qualified investments for an RRSP and imposed gross negligence penalties. The Tax Court upheld both the assessment and the penalties. Costs were awarded to the Crown.
Gorman v. R. - TCC: Shares acquired by RRSP not qualified investments, penalties sustainedREAD MORE »

Omoruan v. R. - TCC: Charitable donations denied, statute-barred year opened, taxpayer not credible

Aug 05, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer claimed charitable donation credits in the 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 taxation years of $9,533, $15,700, $12,360 and $8,033 respectively. She claimed that the donations included cash as well as gifts in kind including used shoes and toys. Quite simply the Tax Court rejected her evidence and dismissed the appeals. The Court upheld the assessment of 2003 notwithstanding the fact that it was otherwise statute-barred. There was no order as to costs as these were informal procedure appeals.
Omoruan v. R. - TCC: Charitable donations denied, statute-barred year opened, taxpayer not credibleREAD MORE »

Melman v. R. - TCC: $18.85 million in dividend income unreported, gross negligence penalties sustained

Aug 05, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Melman omitted to include $15,080,000.00 in dividends (yielding $18,850,000.00 in taxable dividends) in his 2007 tax return filed in April of 2008. This resulted in an understatement of his tax payable by a factor of 12.5. The Court found that Mr. Melman was a highly educated, meticulous person who planned his tax affairs in consultation with his accountants and had set aside a reserve fund for his 2007 taxes in the amount of $4,725,000.00. However he claimed not to have reviewed his 2007 return before signing it and only paid $359,604.43 based on the return filed.
Melman v. R. - TCC: $18.85 million in dividend income unreported, gross negligence penalties sustainedREAD MORE »

Blackwell v. R. - TCC: Appeal quashed as taxpayer never objected to underlying reassessment

Aug 04, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer’s Notice of Appeal purported to appeal his 2008 taxation year however he had never filed a notice of objection to the second notice of reassessment for that year. As a result the Court granted the Crown’s motion to strike the appeal. It awarded costs fixed at $625 to the Crown. In light of the conduct of Mr. Blackwell’s representative, Mr. Garrison, the Court gave him 30 days to make submissions why he should not be ordered to pay all or part of Mr. Blackwell’s costs personally.
Blackwell v. R. - TCC: Appeal quashed as taxpayer never objected to underlying reassessmentREAD MORE »

Hayfron- Benjamin v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer victim of identity theft, appeal allowed

Aug 04, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer was assessed for unreported employment income in the amount of $5,759 in 2011. The taxpayer was able to establish on the evidence that the amount had been depostited to the bank account of his brother, Albert, and that the taxpayer had never been employed by the employer in question. There was no order as to costs.
Hayfron- Benjamin v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer victim of identity theft, appeal allowedREAD MORE »

Bauer v. R. - TCC: Large portions of taxpayer’s Notice of Appeal struck

Aug 03, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The Crown moved to strike at least 38 full paragraphs of the taxpayer’s Notice of Appeal and portions of other paragraphs of the Notice of Appeal. The provisions in dispute all essentially attacked the conduct and motivation of CRA in assessing the taxpayer. The Court concluded that the provisions had no likelihood of success, were abusive and would unduly delay the proceedings. As a result the provisions were struck. The taxpayer was denied leave to file an amended Notice of Appeal elaborating on the disputed provisions. The Crown was given 60 days to file an amended Reply. The Crown was awarded costs fixed at $1,000.
Bauer v. R. - TCC: Large portions of taxpayer’s Notice of Appeal struckREAD MORE »

Recent Posts

Archives