Blogue

O’Byrne v. R. - FCA: Tax Court correct to deny extension of time to file notices of objection

24 novembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This was an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court in which Justice Boyle had denied the taxpayer’s application for an extension of time to file notices of objection holding that the application was more than 10 years late. The Federal Court of Appeal concurred with Justice Boyle and dismissed the appeal from the bench, but without costs.
O’Byrne v. R. - FCA: Tax Court correct to deny extension of time to file notices of objectionPlus >

Barbeau v. R. - TCC: Cleaners placed by agency were not employees

23 novembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: The appellant operated a form of placement agency for cleaners. The Minister ruled that they were engaged in insurable employment because they operated under the control of the appellant’s clients. The Tax Court found that was not correct as a matter of fact. In the alternative the Minister argued that the cleaners were employed by the appellant. The Court permitted the Minister to make this alternative argument but ruled that the onus was on the Minister to adduce facts to support that argument.
Barbeau v. R. - TCC: Cleaners placed by agency were not employeesPlus >

Barejo Holdings ULC v. R. - TCC: Unusual security was “debt” for the purposes of the ITA

23 novembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This decision involves one of the oddest procedures seen in the Tax Court in many years: [1] The question referred to the Court by the parties pursuant to Rule 58 is whether two contracts, entitled Notes and issued for US $998 million by affiliates of two Canadian banks and guaranteed by those banks, which are held by St. Lawrence Trading Inc. (“SLT”), an open-ended investment fund incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands, constitute debt for purposes of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”).
Barejo Holdings ULC v. R. - TCC: Unusual security was “debt” for the purposes of the ITAPlus >

Canada (National Revenue) v. McNally - FCA: Court declined to hear moot appeal

20 novembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: The underlying issue in this case dealt with the Minister’s power to delay assessing a taxpayer who participated in a large tax shelter. Mr. McNally brought an application to compel the Minister to assess his 2012 tax return and was successful in the Federal Court. The Minister assessed Mr. McNally but also appealed the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. Mr. McNally advised that he would take no part in the appeal since he had obtained what he wanted.
Canada (National Revenue) v. McNally - FCA: Court declined to hear moot appealPlus >

Myers v. R. - TCC: Court rejects evidence husband’s joint interest in home a drafting error

20 novembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: Ms. Myers was assessed under subsection 160(1) of the Income Tax Act in respect of the transfer to her by her husband of his share of their home at a time he had an income tax liability. Her defense was that the original acquisition of the home in their joint names was a drafting error and she was always intended to be the sole owner.
Myers v. R. - TCC: Court rejects evidence husband’s joint interest in home a drafting errorPlus >

Mcnally v. R. - FCA: Crown ordered to make submissions on why appeal not moot

19 novembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Mcnally moved successfully in the Federal Court for an order requiring the Minister to reassess his 2012 taxation year. The Minister did so but nonetheless appealed the order to the Federal Court of Appeal. Mr. Mcnally advised that he would not participate in the appeal as he regarded the matter as over. The Minister moved for directions. Stratas JA ordered the Minister to make written submissions within 10 days on the issue of mootness. Mr. Mcnally would have 4 days to respond if he chose to do so. There was no order as to costs.
Mcnally v. R. - FCA: Crown ordered to make submissions on why appeal not mootPlus >

Symons v. R. - TCC: Daycare worker an independent contractor

19 novembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: Ms. Aguilar was a daycare worker. The sole issue before the Court was whether she was an employee. The Court concluded that she was not an employee, based largely on the evidence of mutual intention and absence of a significant degree of control.
Symons v. R. - TCC: Daycare worker an independent contractorPlus >

Heroux v. R. - FCA: Appeal not setting out any grounds of appeal dismissed

18 novembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: Ms. Heroux appealed a Tax Court decision upholding a subsection 160(1) assessment against her in respect of property transferred to her by her husband. She filed a notice of appeal that simply copied the Federal Court of Appeal form for a notice of appeal and did not set out any specific grounds applicable to her case. The Court of Appeal ordered her to provide specific grounds and she failed to do so. The Crown moved to have the appeal dismissed.
Heroux v. R. - FCA: Appeal not setting out any grounds of appeal dismissedPlus >

ITC Invoice (20376525 Ontario) v. R. - TCC: Development of factoring software not SRED

18 novembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer operated a factoring business. In the course of that business it developed factoring software known as Factorsuite. It claimed SRED credits in respect of the development cost of Factorsuite and CRA denied the credits. It appealed to the Tax Court. The Court held that the Factorsuite project did not amount to SRED because it did not entail a sufficient degree of uncertainty. They were retooling off the shelf programs.
ITC Invoice (20376525 Ontario) v. R. - TCC: Development of factoring software not SREDPlus >

Birchcliff Energy Ltd. v. R. - TCC: Loss trading plan subject to GAAR

17 novembre 2015 By Bill Innes

Précis: This decision involved a very complex tax plan designed to trade in the losses of a predecessor corporation of the taxpayer:
Birchcliff Energy Ltd. v. R. - TCC: Loss trading plan subject to GAARPlus >

Archives - 2015

Archives