Blogue

Luschtinetz v. R. - TCC: No tax credits for children living with ex-spouse

12 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The appellant was required pursuant to a court order to pay support for both his former wife and their children, who resided with the ex-wife. He claimed tax credits in respect of the children which CRA denied. His appeal to the Tax Court was dismissed.
Luschtinetz v. R. - TCC: No tax credits for children living with ex-spousePlus >

Vamathevan v. R. - TCC: No extension for GST/HST notice of objection - application out of time

12 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer applied for an extension of the time to file a notice of objection in respect of a new housing GST/HST rebate. The application was made more than one year and 90 days after the assessment in question. The Tax Court held that it could not allow the application despite some postal confusion arising out of the taxpayer’s original application for the rebate.
Vamathevan v. R. - TCC: No extension for GST/HST notice of objection - application out of timePlus >

Blue v. R. - TCC: Annual payments were deductible as spousal support

11 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Blue and his ex-wife agreed to her receiving $12,000 per annum for 5 years on the breakup of their marriage. Originally the payments were to be monthly but that was changed to one annual payment of $12,000. When he sought to deduct the first payment in 2013 CRA denied the deduction on the basis that it was not a payment for maintenance but rather a non-deductible capital payment.
Blue v. R. - TCC: Annual payments were deductible as spousal supportPlus >

Durocher v. R. - TCC: Option not a nullity - corporation not a CCPC - no capital gains exemption

11 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The appellants disposed of the shares of Gestion RJCG Inc. ("RJCG") in 2006 and claimed a capital gains exemption in respect of the disposition. CRA denied the exemption on the basis that RJCG was not a "qualified small business corporation shares" as defined by subsection 110.6(1) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”). CRA concluded that RJCG was controlled by Aviva Canada Inc. ("Aviva"), a public corporation, by virtue of an option agreement throughout the 24 month period preceding the disposition. Thus it was not a Canadian-controlled private corporation (“CCPC) and, as a result, not a qualified small business corporation.
Durocher v. R. - TCC: Option not a nullity - corporation not a CCPC - no capital gains exemptionPlus >

Khattar v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer subject to penalties for claiming fictitious business losses

6 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Khattar claimed fictitious business losses in 2008 ( as well as loss carry backs to the three preceding taxation years) on the advice of his tax preparer, Mr. Rasool. CRA denied the losses and imposed gross negligence penalties. The only point at issue in this appeal were the penalties.
Khattar v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer subject to penalties for claiming fictitious business lossesPlus >

Iqbal v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer denied deduction for alleged cash and in-kind donations

6 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer claimed donations totalling $7,500 (both cash and in-kind gifts) to charities in 2008. The Tax Court held that she had not adduced evidence sufficient to support the making of the donations and dismissed the appeal. There was no order as to costs as it was an informal procedure appeal.
Iqbal v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer denied deduction for alleged cash and in-kind donationsPlus >

Dicosmo v. R. - TCC: Mixed bag of deductions denied to sales person

5 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Dicosmo was a highly paid sales person. He claimed a variety of deductions in 2003, 2004 and 2005. He claimed roughly $100,000 in unreimbursed employment expenses (including roughly $40,000 in salaries paid to his wife and two children) over the three year period; CRA allowed roughly $9,000 of the claim. He claimed allowable business investment losses of $63,999, $22,000, and $39,500 for the 2003, 2004, and 2005 taxation years, respectively; CRA rejected the claim.
Dicosmo v. R. - TCC: Mixed bag of deductions denied to sales personPlus >

Emotion Picture Studios v. R. - TCC: Research on Google searches not SRED

5 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer claimed SRED expenses in relation to research to improve search results on Google. The Court held that the taxpayer was conducting “thorough, extensive but routine research” [para. 10] that did not amount to SRED. The appeal, which was an informal procedure appeal, was dismissed without costs.
Emotion Picture Studios v. R. - TCC: Research on Google searches not SREDPlus >

Andrew Peller Limited v. R. - TCC: Pooled tips were wages for EI and CPP purposes

4 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The appellant operated a pooled gratuity policy at its restaurant whereby all tips were collected and pooled among staff in accordance with a formula determined by the appellant. It argued that the tips did not form part of the wages of its employees for EI and CPP purposes. Its position was that it simply collected and distributed the tips. The Tax Court rejected the appellant’s position holding that it had control of the manner in which the tips were distributed making the distribution part of the employees’ wages.
Andrew Peller Limited v. R. - TCC: Pooled tips were wages for EI and CPP purposesPlus >

Archives - 2016

Archives