Dilalla v. R. – TCC: Taxpayer not entitled to fresh discovery with new representative of the Crown

Sep 17, 2018 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Dilalla worked as a carpenter and received amounts in 2010, 2011 and 2012 from a contracting corporation of which he was sole director and shareholder. He did not report them as income arguing that “his activities were performed for the “sole purpose and intent of exercising his labour in providing a livelihood” for himself and his family. In short, he believes the amounts received were neither a source of taxable income nor dividends. [para. [1]].” He conducted a discovery of the officer appointed by the Crown and was dissatisfied with the answers. He moved to examine another officer of the Crown. Bocock J. dimissed his application with costs holding it was not supported by the facts, the jurisprudence or the Rules.
Dilalla v. R. – TCC: Taxpayer not entitled to fresh discovery with new representative of the CrownREAD MORE »

1716790 Ontario Inc. v. R. - TCC: Corporate taxpayer must answer questions about a major owner

Sep 12, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Although this case involves very detailed refusal issues it boils down to whether the corporate taxpayer can be forced to answer questions about a non-majority, but major, shareholder who is alleged in the Crown’s Reply to be its controlling mind. The central issue in the case is whether the corporate taxpayer was in the business of building and selling retirement homes, as was alleged by the Crown, or whether it held the homes as capital property.
1716790 Ontario Inc. v. R. - TCC: Corporate taxpayer must answer questions about a major ownerREAD MORE »

Cuddy v. R - TCC: Discovery timetable to include follow-up questions

Apr 15, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is a decision on a scheduling motion for an examination for discovery. The Crown wanted the schedule to provide for follow-up questions arising out of answers to undertakings. The taxpayer objected on the basis that such questions would amount to a second examination for discovery which cannot be conducted without an order of the Court. The Tax Court found that follow-up questions are inherent in the discovery process and accepted the Crown’s position.
Cuddy v. R - TCC: Discovery timetable to include follow-up questionsREAD MORE »

Teranet Inc. v. R. - TCC: Court orders third parties examined for discovery

Mar 08, 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The underlying issue in this appeal was the disallowance of a portion of interest charges arising after a 2006 reorganization of a predecessor corporation of the appellant. The Crown took the position that the appellant had either refused or was unable to provide information about the 2006 reorganization. It therefore applied for an orders to discover third parties from two accounting firms that were involved in the 2006 reorganization. The Court concluded that the Crown had met the threshold for third party discoveries and granted the orders sought. Costs were awarded to the Crown.
Teranet Inc. v. R. - TCC: Court orders third parties examined for discoveryREAD MORE »