Blogue

Big Bird Trucking Inc. v. R. - TCC: Truck drivers were independent contractors

20 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer appealed a finding that truck drivers hired by it were employees. The Court examined the well known factors in EI/CPP cases and concluded that, on balance, the drivers were self-employed.
Big Bird Trucking Inc. v. R. - TCC: Truck drivers were independent contractorsPlus >

Ford Credit Canada v. R. - TCC: Letter from appeals officer did not vacate assessment

20 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer was reassessed on July 9, 2009 for its 2004 and 2005 taxation years. It duly filed notices of objection in a timely manner. After some back and forth the appeals officer wrote to the taxpayer on August 26, 2011 proposing to vacate the 2004 reassessment as part of a settlement offer. After more discussion reassessments were issued on December 19, 2011 for both the 2004 and 2005 taxation years. The taxpayer argued that the December 19, 2011 reassessment of its 2005 taxation year was out of time because of the August 26, 2011 letter had vacated the 2004 reassessment, not reassessed, which meant that the later reassessment of 2005 was not a “consequential” assessment.
Ford Credit Canada v. R. - TCC: Letter from appeals officer did not vacate assessmentPlus >

Morrison v. R. - TCC: Appellant in test case not entitled to information about others involved

18 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer’s appeal was one of a number of test cases dealing with donations of pharmaceuticals under tax shelter programs described as the CHT and CGI Donation Programs. In this motion the taxpayer claimed three forms of relief:
Morrison v. R. - TCC: Appellant in test case not entitled to information about others involvedPlus >

AgraCity Ltd. v. R. - FCA: Crown can have inconsistent pleadings in related appeals

18 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The Tax Court struck a portion of the Crown’s reply in this case on the basis that it was dealt with transfer pricing while at the same time the Crown argued that there had been no transfer from the non-resident concerned. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s cross-appeal on this point only. The Crown’s cross-appeal on two other points was dismissed. The taxpayer’s appeal arguing that more provisions should have been struck was also dismissed.
AgraCity Ltd. v. R. - FCA: Crown can have inconsistent pleadings in related appealsPlus >

R. v. Schimpf - FC: Taxpayer held in contempt for failure to abide by compliance order

15 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer was held in contempt of a compliance order issued by the Federal Court.
R. v. Schimpf - FC: Taxpayer held in contempt for failure to abide by compliance orderPlus >

Levenson v. R. - FC: Judicial review of RRSP over-contribution tax dismissed

15 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The applicant had formed the habit of filing his tax returns late since he always overpaid his tax. This led to a confusion on the part of CRA as to the amount of his unused RRSP room. The applicant made excess contributions to his spousal RRSP which led to the imposition of tax, penalties and interest. He applied for taxpayer relief which was denied. He brought a judicial review application in the Federal Court. Shortly before trial CRA consented to a judicial review of the interest and penalties.
Levenson v. R. - FC: Judicial review of RRSP over-contribution tax dismissedPlus >

University of Alta. v. R. - TCC: Campus had 25.36% commercial space for GST purposes

14 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: For GST purposes the University of Alberta was required to compute the percent of its campus which was used for commercial purposes; that computation in turn determined the amount of its input tax credits. The University, after accepting some of the Minister’s adjustments, contended for a figure of 25.36%; the Minister argued for a lower allocation of 14.12%.
University of Alta. v. R. - TCC: Campus had 25.36% commercial space for GST purposesPlus >

University of Cal. v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer’s computations of commercial use accepted by Court

14 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: For GST purposes the University of Calgary was required to compute the percent of its campus which was used for commercial purposes; that computation in turn determined the amount of its input tax credits. The University, after accepting some of the Minister’s adjustments, contended for allocations as follows:
University of Cal. v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer’s computations of commercial use accepted by CourtPlus >

Taylor v. R. - TCC: Penalties sustained where claims made for fictitious business losses

13 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The only issue in this case was the propriety of levying gross negligence penalties where the taxpayer claimed fictitious business losses. As in many prior cases the court sustained the penalties.
Taylor v. R. - TCC: Penalties sustained where claims made for fictitious business lossesPlus >

Foster v. R. - TCC: Reassessment not barred - arises out of same facts

13 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: In 2006 Mr. Foster purchased equipment and licenses for his fishing business for an aggregate price of $215,000. The agreement of purchase and sale was in his name but he subsequently showed the assets in the name of a company of which he was the sole shareholder (KJF). He was reassessed a shareholder benefit in the amount of $70,000 on the basis that he had overcharged KJF for the equipment. He applied for a rectification order making KJF the original purchaser of both the equipment and the license. He obtained, with the consent of the Minister, a partial consent order that “the Appellant held the Equipment and Licences as bare trustee for the benefit of KJF”.
Foster v. R. - TCC: Reassessment not barred - arises out of same factsPlus >

Archives - 2016

Archives