Blogue

Kuchta v. R. - TCC: Subsection 160(1) extends to RRSP designations

3 décembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: The appellant’s spouse, Matthew Juba, died in 2007. Some time prior to his death he had designated the appellant as the sole beneficiary of his RRSPs and, as a result, she received roughly $305,000 after his death from the RRSPs. At the date of his death Mr. Juba owed roughly $55,000 in income tax for his 2006 taxation year. CRA assessed Ms. Kuchta pursuant to subsection 160(1) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) in respect of the transfer from the RRSPs.
Kuchta v. R. - TCC: Subsection 160(1) extends to RRSP designationsPlus >

Chaloux v. R. - TCC: Statute-barred year opened - penalties vacated

2 décembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This decision combines income tax appeals of Mr. and Mrs. Chaloux for 2005 and 2006 as well as a GST appeal of Mr. Chaloux for the period from February 1, 2005 to December 31, 2006. The subject matter was under-reported income (roughly $88,000) from a partnership operated by the taxpayers (60% Mr. Chaloux, 40% Mrs. Chaloux). There was also considerable discussion of allowable expenses. The main issue however dealt with the opening of the 2005 taxation year (which was otherwise statute-barred) and the imposition of penalties for that year.
Chaloux v. R. - TCC: Statute-barred year opened - penalties vacatedPlus >

Drost. v. R. - TCC: Worker in home renovation business was an employee

2 décembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This decision is essentially a textbook example of the parties intending the worker to be an independent contractor but the facts pointing strongly in the direction of an employment relationship. Mr. Drost worked for McHatten Builders Ltd. (“McHatten). McHatten did home renovations largely as a subcontractor for Kent Building Supplies. Mr. Drost was one of the workers performing the renovations for McHatten. He first applied to CRA for a ruling on his status for EI and CPP purposes.
Drost. v. R. - TCC: Worker in home renovation business was an employeePlus >

Benaroch v. R. - TCC: Crown failed to produce evidence - not allowed a new hearing

1 décembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is somewhat of an odd case. Mr. Benaroch was assessed as a director of 4158831 Canada Inc. in respect of unpaid GST of that corporation. At the Tax Court hearing the Crown failed to produce a certificate of the Federal Court showing the corporate debt or a report of the sheriff showing the writ returned unpaid. The Crown then filed a motion for a rehearing in order to produce that evidence (which, it seems, was in the Crown’s possession all along but not disclosed in its list of documents).
Benaroch v. R. - TCC: Crown failed to produce evidence - not allowed a new hearingPlus >

684761 B.C. Ltd. v. R. - TCC: Additional assessment did not vacate prior assessment

1 décembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: In 2013 the taxpayer appealed to the Tax Court from an assessment in respect of its taxation year ending June 30, 2008. In 2014 it received a “Notice of Additional Assessment” imposing penalties pursuant to subsections 163(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act in respect of the same taxation year. The taxpayer moved in the current appeal “determine if the ‘notice of additional assessment’ [for its 2008 taxation year] received by the Appellant is really a reassessment” and, if so, that the reassessment of income for the appellant’s 2008 taxation year before the Court is no longer valid” [para. 1].
684761 B.C. Ltd. v. R. - TCC: Additional assessment did not vacate prior assessmentPlus >

R&D PRO v. R. - TCC: Development of a chocolate spread not SRED

27 novembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer claimed SRED credits in respect of a project to develop a chocolate spread made from cocoa butter and milk protein. The Tax Court held that while the project was methodical and systematic it did not involve sufficient technological risk or uncertainty to amount to SRED. The appeal was dismissed without costs as this was an informal procedure appeal.
R&D PRO v. R. - TCC: Development of a chocolate spread not SREDPlus >

Mattacchione v. R. - TCC: 50-1 Donation flip not a hit in Tax Court

27 novembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This may (one can only hope) be one of the last cases dealing with inflated valuations of gifts in kind to charities. The appellants, formerly husband (“Roberto”) and wife (“Vincenzina”), made donations to a registered charity in the period 2003-2005 of hockey sticks and medical supplies. They received donation receipts of roughly $8 million in the case of the wife and $1.5 million in the case of the husband.
Mattacchione v. R. - TCC: 50-1 Donation flip not a hit in Tax CourtPlus >

Vo v. R. - FCA: No extension of time to file notice of objection

26 novembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: Ms. Vo’s 2008 taxation year was assessed in 2011. She claimed not to have had notice of the assessment until 2013. Both the Minister and the Tax Court denied her application for an extension of the time to file a notice of objection. The Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the Tax Court and dismissed the appeal from the bench with costs of $300 to the Crown.
Vo v. R. - FCA: No extension of time to file notice of objectionPlus >

Ellis v. R. - TCC: Penalty vacated on subsection 160(1) assessment, transfer from husband

26 novembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mrs. Ellis’ husband transferred his 50% interest in their matrimonial home to her at a time when he had an income tax liability. Mrs. Ellis conceded that the transfer was for less than market value. The two points before the Tax Court were the amount of Mr. Ellis’ tax debt at the time of the transfer and the imposition of a gross negligence penalty on Mrs. Ellis.
Ellis v. R. - TCC: Penalty vacated on subsection 160(1) assessment, transfer from husbandPlus >

Cartier House v. R. - TCC: Care services in seniors home exempt from GST

24 novembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This decision involved claims for GST paid in error by operators of two seniors homes: Cartier House Care Centre Ltd. (“CH”) and Courtyard Terrace Assisted Living Residence Ltd. (“CT”). There were in turn wholly owned subsidiaries of Park Place Senior Living Inc. The GST at issue was paid in respect of “homemaker services” provided by third-party contractors. “Homemaker services” are exempt from GST under the provisions of the Excise Tax Act (the “ETA”).
Cartier House v. R. - TCC: Care services in seniors home exempt from GSTPlus >

Archives - 2015

Archives