Blogue

CIBC v. R. - TCC: Court finds CIBC engaged in obstruction of discovery process

11 décembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is an extremely lengthy (364 paragraphs) and complex interlocutory procedural decision arising out of discovery proceedings. The background to the case is CIBC’s claim to deduct roughly $3,000,000,000 paid to settle claims arising out of the collapse of Enron. The Court examined dozens of questions which CIBC declined to answer for various reasons including a number of allegations of privilege. Ultimately CIBC lost on most of the points at issue and the Court found that they were largely engaged in obstruction of the discovery process. Submissions on costs are to be made at a later date.
CIBC v. R. - TCC: Court finds CIBC engaged in obstruction of discovery processPlus >

Olympia Trust v. R. - FCA: RRSP Trustee “purchaser” for 116(5) withholding on share purchases

10 décembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This was an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court blogged earlier on this sight. The Tax Court decision was on an interlocutory motion pursuant to Rule 58 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure). The issue was whether the trustee of several self-administered RRSPs was the “purchaser” (for the purposes of subsection 116(5) of the Income Tax Act (the “ITA”)) of certain private company shares acquired by the RRSPs from non-residents. As “purchaser” the trustee would be potentially liable for any unremitted withholding taxes (none had been remitted in respect of the transactions).
Olympia Trust v. R. - FCA: RRSP Trustee “purchaser” for 116(5) withholding on share purchasesPlus >

Spurvey v. R. - TCC: Gross negligence penalties on fictitious losses - Take #2

10 décembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is another decision on fictitious losses released on the same day as the Chartrand decision blogged earlier on this site. In this case the facts were slightly more bizarre. The tax preparers peddling the scheme were only identified by first names and told the Mr. and Mrs. Spurvey that they were entitled to a tax holiday by virtue of a prior constitutional amendment. Again the only issue before the Court was the imposition of penalties.
Spurvey v. R. - TCC: Gross negligence penalties on fictitious losses - Take #2Plus >

Moerman v. R. - TCC: Hospital chaplain entitled to clergy residence deduction

8 décembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: The appellant acted as a chaplain for a number of hospitals in the Lethbridge area in Alberta. He and his wife owned a corporation, John Moerman Enterprises Ltd. (“JME”) which paid him $24,000 in 2012. That payment was entirely derived from donations from the community in respect of his chaplaincy. He also received an honorarium from from Alberta Health Services (“AHS”) in the amount of $13,836.14. He claimed the clergy residence deduction pursuant to paragraph 8(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) in respect of both amounts but CRA denied the deduction in respect of the payment from JME.
Moerman v. R. - TCC: Hospital chaplain entitled to clergy residence deductionPlus >

Zoccole v. R. - FCA: “Connecting factors” test determines whether income from Reserve

8 décembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This was an appeal from a Tax Court decision blogged earlier on this site under the name Baldwin v. The Queen, 2014 TCC 284. The case dealt with the appellants’ claim to an exemption under paragraph 87(a)(b) of the Indian Act in respect of income earned on a Reserve. The Tax Court held that the income in question was not connected with a reserve and dismissed the appeals. Three of the appellants appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal.
Zoccole v. R. - FCA: “Connecting factors” test determines whether income from ReservePlus >

Tuccaro v. R. - TCC: Court dismisses cross motions on Treaty 8 status

7 décembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is a decision on two conflicting motions: [1] The Respondent (the “Crown”) has brought a motion seeking an Order pursuant to section 58 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (the “Rules”) to determine the following question: Is the Appellant [Mr. Tuccaro] precluded from re-litigating the issue of whether his income is exempt from income taxation pursuant to Treaty 8, on the basis of issue estoppel? [2] The Appellant has brought a motion seeking an Order pursuant to sections 48 and 53 of the Rules to strike certain portions of the Crown’s Reply to the Amended Notice of Appeal.
Tuccaro v. R. - TCC: Court dismisses cross motions on Treaty 8 statusPlus >

Elim Housing Society v. R. - TCC: Long-term care facility entitled to full 83% GST rebate

7 décembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This decision concerned whether a long-term care facility was subject to a 83% GST rebate, as contended by the taxpayer, or a 50% GST rebate as contended by the Crown:
Elim Housing Society v. R. - TCC: Long-term care facility entitled to full 83% GST rebatePlus >

Centrepoint Foods v. R. - TCC: Most gross negligence penalties vacated - balance of appeals dismissed

4 décembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This case involved income tax appeals by both Centrepoint Foods Corporation (“Centrepoint”) and its principal shareholder as well as a GST appeal by Centrepoint. The assessments turned on alleged under-reported sales and over-stated expenses from a Saint Cinnamon franchise in a shopping mall in Kingston, Ontario. In a nutshell the taxpayers were represented by an agent who claimed to have documentation to support the taxpayer’s position on expenses which he actually displayed to the Court but never introduced into evidence.
Centrepoint Foods v. R. - TCC: Most gross negligence penalties vacated - balance of appeals dismissedPlus >

R. v. Fio Corp. - FCA: Implied undertaking rule does not extend to productions to auditor

4 décembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is a decision in an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court blogged earlier on this site. The Tax Court held that the Crown had violated the implied undertaking rule during the discovery process:
R. v. Fio Corp. - FCA: Implied undertaking rule does not extend to productions to auditorPlus >

9250-9893 Québec Inc. v. R. - TCC: Court rejects evidence of safe full of cash

3 décembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: The appellant corporation ran a flea market and a swingers club. A CRA auditor realized that it reported no cash transactions although he discovered some $38,000 in cash deposits to its bank account. This appeal concerned GST on those cash deposits which CRA took to be additional business income. Those amounts were recorded as payable to its shareholder, Mr. Belangér. Mr. Belangér argued that the source of the deposits was cash that he stored in a safe in his home because he did not trust banks.
9250-9893 Québec Inc. v. R. - TCC: Court rejects evidence of safe full of cashPlus >

Archives - 2015

Archives