Blogue

Lemieux v. R. - FCt: Application for judicial review allowed where underlying CRA record incomplete

25 juillet 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer applied for relief of late filing penalties for his 2007 to 2011 taxation years based on evidence of depression stemming from the deaths of his wife, brother and sister-in-law. The application was allowed by CRA for the 2007 to 2010 taxation years but denied for 2011. Mr. Lemieux applied to the Federal Court for judicial review. The Court found a contradiction in the record as to whether Mr. Lemieux had submitted medical evidence with respect to 2011; moreover the evidence in dispute had been destroyed by CRA. The Court quashed the decision and remitted it back to CRA for redetermination by another decision-maker. There was no order as to costs.
Lemieux v. R. - FCt: Application for judicial review allowed where underlying CRA record incompletePlus >

Peach v. R. - FCA: Tax Court reversed on reasonableness of business expenses

4 juillet 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The Minister disallowed certain rental and business expenses claimed by the taxpayer. He appealed to the Tax Court which dismissed his appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision delivered from the bench, dismissed his appeal on the rental expenses but...
Peach v. R. - FCA: Tax Court reversed on reasonableness of business expensesPlus >

Gordon v. R. - FC: Interest relief judicial review allowed - Minister wrongly fettered discretion

30 juin 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer applied for interest relief in respect of GST/HST which had been remitted in a timely manner but by the wrong taxpayer. He carried on business with an associated business, Coastal Collision, which remitted the GST/HST on...
Gordon v. R. - FC: Interest relief judicial review allowed - Minister wrongly fettered discretionPlus >

Kruger v. R. - FCA: Court of Appeal upholds Tax Court decision denying SRED credits

28 juin 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is somewhat of an oddball case involving entitlement to refundable SRED credits. The taxpayer was owned as to 51% (through an intermediary corporation) by Kruger Inc. (“Kruger”) and as to 49% by SGF Rexfor Inc. (“SGF”) (a company owned by the Government of Quebec). It was common ground that if...
Kruger v. R. - FCA: Court of Appeal upholds Tax Court decision denying SRED creditsPlus >

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

13 juin 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 >

Univers Gym Fitness Inc. v. R. - TCC: Deduction for bad debts in computing GST disallowed

7 juin 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer sought to deduct $5,078.15 in computing GST payable. The amount represented bad debts from its fitness customers in the period from 2009 to 2011. The taxpayer’s accountants testified but no one from the corporation appeared. The bad debts were computed from records given to the accountants but they had no knowledge who prepared the records or what steps were taken to collect the alleged bad debts. The Court declined to admit the documents and disallowed the claim to deduct the bad debts. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
Univers Gym Fitness Inc. v. R. - TCC: Deduction for bad debts in computing GST disallowedPlus >

Russell v. R, - TCC: Appeal of “non-taxer” struck

7 juin 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Russell was a “non-taxer” who claimed that his income as a naturopathic doctor was not subject to tax based on a variety of gibberish arguments. His wife filed a similar appeal. Both notices of appeal were struck by the Tax Court without leave to amend. Both Mr. Russell and his wife and the Crown were given time to make written submissions as to costs.
Russell v. R, - TCC: Appeal of “non-taxer” struckPlus >

Cocos v. R. - TCC: Court allows limited deductions for business operated from home - penalties upheld

6 juin 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Ms. Cocos operated an industrial chemical supply business of 9119-5594 Québec inc. (“Valsol”) from her home. CRA denied essentially all of the expenses claimed by Valsol in its 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 taxation years and treated the amounts as benefits to Ms. Cocos. CRA also imposed gross negligence penalties. Ms. Cocos appealed to the Tax Court. The Court allowed a limited amount of the deductions at issue but sustained the imposition of gross negligence penalties. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
Cocos v. R. - TCC: Court allows limited deductions for business operated from home - penalties upheldPlus >

Living Friends Tree Farm v. R. - TCC: Christmas tree farm not a business operation

6 juin 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Living Friends Tree Farm was a partnership of Mr. and Mrs. Dahl which was registered for GST purposes. They claimed input tax credits (“ITCs”) of $15,689 in 2009 in respect of their activity on a 10 acre Christmas tree farm they operated. The Minister subsequently reassessed denying the ITCs on the basis that they did not have a business operation. The Tax Court examined the facts and agreed with the Minister’s position. As a result the appeal was dismissed. There was no order as to costs as this was an informal procedure appeal.
Living Friends Tree Farm v. R. - TCC: Christmas tree farm not a business operationPlus >

Helgesen v. R. - TCC: Passive investor/director did not exercise due diligence

3 juin 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Helgesen was a 50% shareholder and one of two directors of 1072519 Alberta Ltd. (the “Corporation”) which operated an OK Tire franchise . The other shareholder and director, Mr. Pyle, ran the Corporation’s day to day operations and his wife acted as corporate bookkeeper. CRA assessed Mr. Helgesen for roughly $200,000 in unremitted source deductions and GST. The Tax Court rejected Mr. Helgesen’s “due diligence” defence holding that he “did not exercise the degree of care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in comparable circumstances” [para. [32]]. As a result the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Helgesen v. R. - TCC: Passive investor/director did not exercise due diligencePlus >

Nouvelles récentes

Archives