Blogue

Bell v. R. - TCC: Bonuses paid to taxpayer (a status Indian) not exempt - not situate on a reserve

23 août 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer was a status Indian. She did not live on a reserve. She received bonuses in each of the 2005-2008 taxation years from Reed Steel Ltd. (the “RSL”). During the years in question RSL’s office was located on a reserve and the taxpayer carried out the duties of her...
Bell v. R. - TCC: Bonuses paid to taxpayer (a status Indian) not exempt - not situate on a reservePlus >

Morrissey v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer a shared-custody parent - no Canada Child Tax Benefit

22 août 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer claimed the Canada Child Tax Benefit with respect to her son in 2012 and 2013. The Minister determined that she was a shared-custody parent of the boy and allowed her only 50% of the Credit. She appealed to the Tax Court. The Court, after a very careful review of the evidence, concluded that she was a shared-custody parent and dismissed the appeal. There was no award of costs as this was an informal procedure appeal.
Morrissey v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer a shared-custody parent - no Canada Child Tax BenefitPlus >

Rojas v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer was a mortgage broker - her services were a GST exempt supply

22 août 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer was a real estate agent and a licensed mortgage broker. CRA assessed the fees paid to her in the latter capacity as subject to GST. She appealed to the Tax Court on the basis that her services as a mortgage broker were a GST exempt supply of financial services. The Tax Court agreed and allowed the appeal with costs fixed in the amount of $350.
Rojas v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer was a mortgage broker - her services were a GST exempt supplyPlus >

To v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer assessed for unreported income - appeal dismissed

19 août 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Ms. To was assessed for unreported income for the period 2006-2009 based on cash seized in the course of a raid at her home. The cash, roughly, $65,000, was, on her evidence, mostly her savings since the time of her marriage and $4,400 US which belonged to her mother. The Court rejected her evidence entirely. Nevertheless the Crown conceded at trial that there was no unreported income in the years 2006-2008. Gross negligence penalties were deleted for all taxation years also on a concession from the Crown. The Crown also agreed to a reduction of the unreported income in 2009.
To v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer assessed for unreported income - appeal dismissedPlus >

Ross v. R. - TCC: Fees incurred by employee pharmacist in discipline hearing not deductible

19 août 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Ms. Ross was an employee pharmacist. She incurred roughly $5,000 in costs in connection with a disciplinary hearing and the resulting terms of a settlement agreement. She sought to deduct those costs. CRA did not permit the deduction and she appealed to the Tax Court. The Tax Court held that as an employee Ms. Ross was not permitted to deduct the expenses in question. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
Ross v. R. - TCC: Fees incurred by employee pharmacist in discipline hearing not deductiblePlus >

Société générale v. R. - TCC: Interpretation of Article XXII(2) of the Canada-Brazil Tax Treaty

18 août 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Articles XXII(2) and (3) of the Canada-Brazil Tax Treaty provide that Canada must provide a tax credit for interest earned by a Canadian resident in Brazil ... In this pre-trial motion the Tax Court was essentially asked to determine a narrow point of law: is the credit determined on the basis of gross interest income or net interest income?
Société générale v. R. - TCC: Interpretation of Article XXII(2) of the Canada-Brazil Tax TreatyPlus >

Univar Holdco Canada v. R. - TCC: Arm’s length surplus strip under 212.1(4) blocked by GAAR

18 août 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The nub of this decision is set out succinctly in the first few paragraphs: [2] In 2007, CVC Capital Properties (“CVC”), a United Kingdom private equity firm, acquired Univar NV, a Netherlands public corporation. With the acquisition, CVC indirectly acquired a Canadian operating subsidiary with surplus in excess of $889,000,000. CVC carried out a series of transactions so that it could indirectly strip the surplus out of the Canadian subsidiary without paying withholding tax. The Appellant was the holding company used to accomplish the outcome in that series of transactions.
Univar Holdco Canada v. R. - TCC: Arm’s length surplus strip under 212.1(4) blocked by GAARPlus >

Price v. R. - FCt: JR application dismissed with costs - partial relief granted by Minister was not unreasonable

17 août 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: During the period from 2005 to 2013 the applicant failed to file personal income tax returns and GST/HST returns. In 2013 he applied for taxpayer relief from interest and penalties for the entire period from 2005 to 2013. The Minister granted limited relief at the first review level; at the second level review that relief was expanded to some degree. He applied for judicial review and led evidence of the history of personal tragedies that he alleged caused him to fail to file returns for the period in question.
Price v. R. - FCt: JR application dismissed with costs - partial relief granted by Minister was not unreasonablePlus >

Kruger v. R. - FCA: Kruger entitled to mark to market currency options issued by the corporation

17 août 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is an appeal from a Tax Court decision blogged earlier on this site. Because of its exposure to currency risk in multiple jurisdictions Kruger Incorporated (“Kruger”) started an aggressive risk management program using foreign exchange options. The program expanded to the point that they had a foreign exchange desk in house similar to that found in mainstream investment houses. Kruger started to mark its foreign exchange contracts to market, in the same manner as financial institutions. CRA denied Kruger’s mark to market positions and Kruger appealed to the Tax Court.
Kruger v. R. - FCA: Kruger entitled to mark to market currency options issued by the corporationPlus >

Grenon v. R. - FCt: Taxpayer not entitled to interest on funds seized under jeopardy assessment

16 août 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: CRA collected $12.75 million from Mr Grenon in March 2014. In August 2014 the jeopardy order was set aside on the consent of the parties. In March 2015 the $12.75 million was returned to Mr Grenon. Mr. Grenon asked CRA for interest on the funds from the date of seizure and CRA refused. Mr. Grenon brought an application before the Federal Court to judicially review that decision. The Federal Court denied the application for judicial review holding that the Minister’s decision was reasonable. Costs were awarded to CRA.
Grenon v. R. - FCt: Taxpayer not entitled to interest on funds seized under jeopardy assessmentPlus >

Archives - 2016

Archives