Blogue

R. v. Lee - FCA: FCA reverses Federal Court and issues compliance order - section 231.7

3 mars 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The Federal Court denied CRA’s application for a compliance order under section 231.7 of the Income Tax Act ( the “ITA”) in respect of a requirement for information issued to Mr. Lee on the basis that it was overbroad and vague. The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the Federal Court and issued the compliance order sought by CRA. CRA was awarded costs both in the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.
R. v. Lee - FCA: FCA reverses Federal Court and issues compliance order - section 231.7Plus >

Genest v. The Queen - TCC: Section 160 assessment of remuneration allegedly paid to wife upheld

2 mars 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Ms. Genest was assessed under section 160 with amounts totaling $45,000 transferred to her by businesses controlled by her partner, Martin Tremblay, at a time when he had a substantial income tax liability:
Genest v. The Queen - TCC: Section 160 assessment of remuneration allegedly paid to wife upheldPlus >

6051944 Canada Inc. v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer allowed GST ITCs on management fees

2 mars 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The appellant claimed, and was denied, GST input tax credits (ITC’s) on management fees paid to related corporations. The appellant appealed the denial of ITCs to the Tax Court:
6051944 Canada Inc. v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer allowed GST ITCs on management feesPlus >

Raymond v. R. - TCC: Gross negligence penalties affirmed

1 mars 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Ms. Raymond and her spouse, Mr. Ludlow, operated a variety of businesses as well as a partnership. They were each assessed gross negligence penalties with respect to under-reported income in 2006 and 2007. The partnership was also assessed gross negligence penalties in respect of over-stated GST input tax credits during the same period. The Court affirmed the imposition of the penalties.
Raymond v. R. - TCC: Gross negligence penalties affirmedPlus >

Lalande v. R. - TCC: Husband working for wife’s company denied EI benefits

1 mars 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Lalande worked for a corporation controlled by his wife. When his employment was terminated on May 2, 2014 he applied for EI benefits. The benefits were denied on the basis that he was not engaged in insurable employment since the terms and conditions of his employment were not similar to arm’s length employment. He appealed to the Tax Court. The Tax Court concluded that the terms of his employment were not arm’s length and dismissed the appeal.
Lalande v. R. - TCC: Husband working for wife’s company denied EI benefitsPlus >

Complimentary Tax Event in Toronto | Cross Border Tax Problems: Advising the Delinquent Filer

1 mars 2016 By Taxnet Pro

Please join us for an evening of stimulating professional development with three Thomson Reuters Tax & Accounting Canada authors David W. Chodikoff, Dr. David Kerzner, and Max Reed.
Complimentary Tax Event in Toronto | Cross Border Tax Problems: Advising the Delinquent FilerPlus >

Wholistic Child and Family Services v. R. - TCC: Child and Youth Care worker subject to EI/CPP

29 février 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Hyacinth Dunkley was a professional Child and Youth Care worker who was placed by Wholistic with its clients. The question before the Court was whether she was subject to CPP and EI. The Court found that for CPP purposes her position was analogous to employment and for EI purposes she functioned under the direction and control of clients of Wholistic. Accordingly the appeals were both dismissed.
Wholistic Child and Family Services v. R. - TCC: Child and Youth Care worker subject to EI/CPPPlus >

Waters v. R. - TCC: Court accepts worker’s evidence of insurable hours of employment

29 février 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Waters was a substitute teacher. His claim for EI benefits was denied because his employer reported that he had 674 hours rather than the 700 hour minimum required. He gave evidence that his actual hours were 763. The Court accepted his evidence and allowed his appeal.
Waters v. R. - TCC: Court accepts worker’s evidence of insurable hours of employmentPlus >

Weinberg Family Trust v. R. - TCC: TCC has no jurisdiction to determine residence for Ontario tax

25 février 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The Weinberg Family Trust filed in 2007 to 2010 as a resident of Albert. The Minister reassessed on the basis that the Trust was a resident of Ontario and applied gross negligence penalties. The Trust filed appeals both with the Tax Court and the Ontario Superior Court. The Crown moved to quash the notice of appeal in the Tax Court. The Tax Court held it had no jurisdiction to determine the residence of a trust for Ontario income tax purposes, nor to examine the imposition of Ontario penalties and quashed the notice of appeal with costs to the Crown.
Weinberg Family Trust v. R. - TCC: TCC has no jurisdiction to determine residence for Ontario taxPlus >

Jaamiah Al Uloom v. R. - FCA: Charity’s appeal from deregistration dismissed

25 février 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The Appellant was deregistered as a charity for failing to keep proper books and records and appealed its deregistration to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Appellant argued that its failures were not serious enough to justify the Minister’s decision to deregister rather than impose lesser sanctions. The Court of Appeal disagreed and held that the breach of its foundational duty to keep books and records justified the deregistration. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed from the bench with costs.
Jaamiah Al Uloom v. R. - FCA: Charity’s appeal from deregistration dismissedPlus >

Archives - 2016

Archives