Archives - juin 2019

• 

  Meerman v. R. – FCA: No reversible error by trial judge in allowing cross-examination of taxpayer on association with Paradigm Education Group

  28 juin 2019 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  Précis: The taxpayer did not report slightly more than one million dollars of income during the period 2006-2011. He was assessed on this income (which included opening otherwise statute-barred years) and gross negligence penalties were imposed. The taxpayer, who was self-represented, claimed that the amounts in questions were not taxable income, but rather proceeds of a “non-commercial personal endeavour” [para. [4]]. The Tax Court Judge dismissed his appeal and he appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal on a number of grounds, all of which were rejected. Thus the appeal was dismissed with costs fixed in the amount of $1,700 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.
  Meerman v. R. – FCA: No reversible error by trial judge in allowing cross-examination of taxpayer on association with Paradigm Education GroupPlus >
• 

  Rasmussen v. R. – TCC: No relief for taxpayer on capital portion of Australian pension payments

  27 juin 2019 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  Précis: The taxpayer immigrated to Canada from Australia. He received pension payments from his former Australian employer and sought to deduct the capital element contributed by him (for which he was never entitled to a deduction under Australian tax law). The Tax Court dismissed the appeal holding that on the basis of established precedent Canadian tax law did not permit a carve out of the capital element of pensions. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
  Rasmussen v. R. – TCC: No relief for taxpayer on capital portion of Australian pension paymentsPlus >
• 

  Kibalian v. R. – FCA: Federal Court of Appeal sets aside costs order by Tax Court for failure of natural justice

  25 juin 2019 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  Précis: The taxpayer appealed reassessments for the 2006-2010 taxation years. The Tax Court, of its own motion, awarded $7,500 in costs against the taxpayer in pre-trial proceedings and subsequently dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal (or, possibly, appeals – it is not clear from the decision) for failure to pay the outstanding costs award. The Court of Appeal found that the Tax Court violated the rules of natural justice and set aside that portion of the Tax Court order directing the payment of $7,500 in costs. The taxpayer did not seek costs in the Court of Appeal and none were awarded.
  Kibalian v. R. – FCA: Federal Court of Appeal sets aside costs order by Tax Court for failure of natural justicePlus >
• 

  Anand v. R. – TCC: Tax Court accepted parol evidence that the appellant was a project manager, not a general contractor – therefore, on the facts, a small supplier exempt from GST/HST

  18 juin 2019 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Commodity Tax
  • Federal Income Tax

  Précis: The taxpayer and his wife agreed to supervise the construction and decoration of a new home for a couple of wealthy doctors. The evidence was that each was paid a flat fee of $75,000 payable at a rate of $25,000 per year over three years. Counsel for CRA argued that the Court should not accept the parol evidence of the taxpayer and his clients and should rather look to the documentation which supported the Crown’s argument that the taxpayer was a general contractor and purchased supplies for his own account. The Court rejected that Crown’s argument, accepted the evidence of Mr. Anand and allowed the appeal, vacating the assessment. Costs were awarded to Mr. Anand.
  Anand v. R. – TCC: Tax Court accepted parol evidence that the appellant was a project manager, not a general contractor – therefore, on the facts, a small supplier exempt from GST/HSTPlus >
• 

  Abreo v. R. – TCC: One of the last software charitable donation cases fails based on the Court finding the software had very little value

  17 juin 2019 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  Précis: As most readers are aware the early 2000’s saw a raft of charitable donation in kind cases involving art, medicine, software, etc. Virtually all failed because the Courts held that the values attached to the gifts were inflated. This is one of the remnants of those lines of cases. One category of donation was of “Lotus Smart Suite” (“LSS”) from Systelligence Systems Inc. (“Systelligence”); the donation receipts claimed were for $600 per program. The Minister allowed $120 per program, i.e., what the participants in the donation plan had paid. The Court accepted the Crown’s evidence that the software was unlicensed and unauthorized by Lotus. Accordingly, the taxpayers had not adduced evidence to refute the donation amount used by CRA. In the case of the Blue and Purple Collection CD-ROMs donated in 2002 and 2003 the Court similarly found that the value was far less than the donation receipts claimed. Thus the Court dismissed all of the appeals. The Court however declined to award costs against the taxpayers since they had followed the Informal Procedure process in launching and pursuing their appeals.
  Abreo v. R. – TCC: One of the last software charitable donation cases fails based on the Court finding the software had very little valuePlus >
• 

  AE Hospitality Ltd. v. R. – TCC: staff provided to catering companies were engaged in insurable/pensionable employment

  14 juin 2019 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Employment Insurance/CPP
  • Federal Income Tax

  Précis: This is a lengthy (217 paragraphs), erudite and factually complex decision involving 218 workers. The taxpayer, AE Hospitality Ltd. (AE), provided staff to two catering companies owned, in whole or in part, by related individuals. The Minister found that all of the employees were engaged in insurable and pensionable employment in 2016. The Court, after an extensive analysis agreed with the Minister’s position (without the necessity for recourse to the Minister’s alternative “placement agency” argument). An appeal in respect of two individuals in 2015 was allowed in part.
  AE Hospitality Ltd. v. R. – TCC: staff provided to catering companies were engaged in insurable/pensionable employmentPlus >
• 

  Wilson v. R. – FCA: Tax Court dismisses appeal on procedural grounds – Court of Appeal upholds Tax Court

  13 juin 2019 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  Précis: The Tax Court struck portions of the taxpayer’s Notice of Appeal and gave him 60 days to file an amended Notice of Appeal, which he failed to do. The Tax Court then ordered the taxpayer to file a compliant Notice of Appeal within 60 days. The taxpayer filed an amended Notice of Appeal and the Tax Court Judge concluded that the amended Notice of Appeal did not comply with the two preceding orders and dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal (per curiam) held that while dismissing an appeal on procedural grounds was a “severe remedy” there was “no palpable and overriding error of fact or mixed fact and law and no error of law by the Tax Court” so as to permit the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal [para. [25]]. Thus the appeal was dismissed with costs.
  Wilson v. R. – FCA: Tax Court dismisses appeal on procedural grounds – Court of Appeal upholds Tax CourtPlus >
• 

  Genrdon v. R. – TCC: Employment in the Netherlands was not “insurable employment” for the purposes of the Employment Insurance Act

  7 juin 2019 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Employment Insurance/CPP

  Précis: ​During the period under appeal Mr. Gendron worked for Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV (“SNV”) in the Netherlands. He was seconded from his prior employer, Shell Canada Ltd. (“Shell”). The test for insurable employment outside Canada was two-fold: Was the employment insurable employment under the laws of the Netherlands, the place where the employment took place? Was Mr. Gendron’s employment in the Netherlands by an employer who is resident or has a place of business in Canada? If the answer to Question 1 was “Yes” or if the answer to Question 2 was “No”, Mr. Gendron was not engaged in insurable employment for the purposes of the Employment Insurance Act. The Tax Court found that Mr. Gendron, on the evidence, would have been entitled to benefits under the laws of the Netherlands while working for SNV thus answering Question 1 as “Yes”. Accordingly it was not necessary to answer Question 2 and the Court declined to do so. Thus Mr. Gendron’s appeal was dismissed. Each party was directed to bear their own costs.
  Genrdon v. R. – TCC: Employment in the Netherlands was not “insurable employment” for the purposes of the Employment Insurance ActPlus >