Blogue

Modern Workplace: Employee or Contractor?

7 mars 2017

Having a job doesn’t mean the same thing it used to. Now, not every worker collects a regular pay check and automatically contributes to the Employment Insurance Program and the Canadian Pension Plan. They also don’t always receive benefits, overtime pay, statutory holiday pay, parental leave, bereavement leave and a pension – not to mention severance pay upon termination.
Modern Workplace: Employee or Contractor?Plus >

Coley v. R. - FC: Judicial review application for taxpayer relief dismissed - CRA decision not unreasonable

6 mars 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: The Applicant, Donald Cooley and Tradelink Stucco & Construction Inc., applied for both income tax relief (penalties and interest) in connection with its 2004 and 2005 taxation years as well as payroll and GST/HST relief (penalties and interest) for the 2009-2014 tax years. Both applications were denied in two letters and the Applicant moved for judicial review. The Court treated the two letters as one decision. The requests for relief were premised on financial distress. In denying the relief sought CRA concluded that there was not sufficient evidence of distress and that the Applicant’s directors did not exercise the reasonable care expected to ensure proper filing and remittances.
Coley v. R. - FC: Judicial review application for taxpayer relief dismissed - CRA decision not unreasonablePlus >

Feizmohammadi v. R. - TCC: Condo held for 75 days not a principal residence

27 février 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer took closed the purchase of a condo on October 30, 2009, listed it for sale on December 19, 2009 and closed the sale on January 12, 2010. The taxpayer claimed that he and his family took possession of the condo on May 11, 2009 and lived there until it was sold. The Court examined a number of factors, including evidence that seemed to suggest there was no electrical consumption at the condo from July 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009 (or, if there was, someone else paid the bill). On balance the taxpayer did not satisfy the Court that the condo was ever occupied by him or his family as a principal residence and the appeal was dismissed.
Feizmohammadi v. R. - TCC: Condo held for 75 days not a principal residencePlus >

Inowal Transport Ltd. v. R. - TCC: Workers not engaged in insurable employment

24 février 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: The issue was whether 4 workers were engaged in contracts of service with the appellant corporation in 2014. In the case of 2 of the workers, they were related to the appellant corporation, so there was a secondary issue of whether the agreement were substantially similar to contracts of employment that would have been entered into if they had been dealing at arm’s length with the appellant.
Inowal Transport Ltd. v. R. - TCC: Workers not engaged in insurable employmentPlus >

Bailey v. R. - TCC: Penalties for late filing modified in part

24 février 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Bailey was assessed late-filing penalties of $11,817.32 and $710.58 under subsection 162(2) of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) for his 2010 and 2012 taxation years. The Court affirmed the 2010 penalty on the evidence but in the case of the 2012 penalty held that the Crown did not demonstrate that a demand letter was sent to Mr. Bailey in order to justify a larger penalty under subsection 162(2). The Court however found that the evidence justified a smaller penalty under subsection 162(1) for 2012. Thus the appeal for 2010 was dismissed and the appeal for 2012 was allowed to delete the subsection 162(1) penalty and impose a smaller penalty under subsection 162(1).
Bailey v. R. - TCC: Penalties for late filing modified in partPlus >

Revcon Oilfield v. R. - FCA: Appeal of compliance order dismissed from the Bench

23 février 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: The Federal Court issued a compliance order pursuant to section 237.1 of the Income Tax Act. The taxpayer appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found no error in the original decision but also entertained a new legal argument raised by the taxpayer based on two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions dealing with the effect of requirements on members of the legal profession. The Court of Appeal rejected the new argument on the basis that the taxpayer, not being a member of the legal profession, was not entitled to benefit from the decisions in question:
Revcon Oilfield v. R. - FCA: Appeal of compliance order dismissed from the BenchPlus >

Andrews v. R. - TCC: Driving service not a “transportation service” - not zero-rated for GST/HST

23 février 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Andrews operated Canadian Auto, a sole proprietorship. Canadian auto arranged for drivers to transport cars from the US to Canada on a seasonal basis, typically where there was a medical emergency involving the owner or operator of the vehicle. The cars were driven under their own power and not towed or otherwise transported. Mr. Andrews claimed that his supplies were zero-rated “transportation services”. CRA maintained that they were “driver services” (not a term defined in the Excise Tax Act but one found in some CRA literature) and not zero-rated. The Tax Court agreed with CRA.
Andrews v. R. - TCC: Driving service not a “transportation service” - not zero-rated for GST/HSTPlus >

Yu v. R. - TCC: Funds transferred by wife’s sister (and taxpayer’s former wife) not trust funds - subsection 160(1) applied

21 février 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer received $119,500 in 2010 in four tranches from his wife’s sister, Yan Siang Yu (who was also his former wife). Yan Siang Yu had a large tax debt arising from a net worth assessment of a marijuana grow operation at a Vancouver house on West 53rd Avenue owned by her. The taxpayer argued that the money was placed by his mother-in-law, Jiao Zhen Huang, with his sister-in-law, Yan Siang Yu, for the benefit of his wife and their son when his mother-in-law sold her house on West 46th Avenue in Vancouver.
Yu v. R. - TCC: Funds transferred by wife’s sister (and taxpayer’s former wife) not trust funds - subsection 160(1) appliedPlus >

Helgesen v. R. - FCA: Director did not make out due diligence defence, appeal dismissed from Bench

21 février 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Helgesen was assessed for tax and unremitted payroll deductions pursuant to section 227.1 of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”). He unsuccessfully appealed to the Tax Court attempting to establish a due diligence defence. He appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal which held that he had not made out any reversible error by the Tax Court Judge. The appeal was dismissed from the Bench with costs to the Crown.
Helgesen v. R. - FCA: Director did not make out due diligence defence, appeal dismissed from BenchPlus >

Truong v. R. - TCC: $1.8 million increase in net worth not explained by “Ziploc bags of cash”

17 février 2017 By Bill Innes

Précis: A net worth assessment of the taxpayer revealed a $1.8 million increase in her net worth from 2005 to 2009. She was assessed for both income tax and GST on the unreported income and taxable supplies at issue. She had a variety of explanations for the increase including a particularly amusing story about her brother bringing her Ziploc bags of cash from her boyfriend. The Court was not amused and dismissed the appeals (apart from a $4,800 error in math) and sustained the imposition of gross negligence penalties. Costs were awarded to the Crown subject to the right of the parties to make submissions on costs within 30 days.
Truong v. R. - TCC: $1.8 million increase in net worth not explained by “Ziploc bags of cash”Plus >

Archives - 2017

Archives