Blogue

Maxi Maid Services (1998) Ltd. v. R. - TCC: No CPP withholdings for CPP pensioner

10 mars 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: This decision is an early frontrunner for most ridiculous CRA position of 2016. Dora Eytcheson is a home cleaner in her seventies. Her husband died in 2002 and she has received a CPP survivor pension since then. For a number of years she worked for Maxi Maid services which withheld CPP from her salary. In 2009 she turned 65 and applied for her own CPP pension. Shortly thereafter she started receiving a higher monthly cheque which she assumed was a combination of her survivor pension and her own pension. In 2011 she noticed that CPP was still being withheld from her salary so she filed two elections in form CPT30 “Election to Stop Contributing to the Canada Pension Plan or the Revocation of a Prior Election” with CRA and gave a copy to Maxi Maid. Maxi Maid stopped withholding but then in 2013 CRA assessed them for failure to withhold CPP:
Maxi Maid Services (1998) Ltd. v. R. - TCC: No CPP withholdings for CPP pensionerPlus >

SNF L.P. v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer entitled to GST Input Tax Credits where vendor has GST number

10 mars 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The question in this appeal was very narrow: [1] The issue in this appeal is whether, or to what extent, a purchaser of goods who pays the required Goods and Services Tax ("GST") under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act ("ETA" or "Act") to a person who is registered as a supplier, but may not be a supplier, is entitled to input tax credits ("ITCs") if the purported supplier, among other things, does not remit the GST to the Receiver General. And if the purchaser in such circumstances is not entitled to ITCs, is it entitled to a rebate of tax paid in error? (Section 261 and subsection 296(2.1) of the ETA.)
SNF L.P. v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer entitled to GST Input Tax Credits where vendor has GST numberPlus >

Complimentary Webinar: How to Rock at Content Marketing - Achieve Superstar Performance For Your Firm

10 mars 2016 By Taxnet Pro

With the continuous rise of social media, content marketing has become even more critical to an accounting firm’s overall marketing strategy. Join Checkpoint Marketing for Firms and special guests Katie Tolin (founder, CPA Growth Guides) and Eric Majchrzak (Shareholder and CMO, BeachFleischman) for this high-energy best practices session that will explore how you can take your marketing to the next level and rock your content like a superstar.
Complimentary Webinar: How to Rock at Content Marketing - Achieve Superstar Performance For Your Firm Plus >

Donaldson v. R. - TCC: CRA’s computation of terminal loss on change of use correct

9 mars 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer and his wife converted their personal residence to rental property in 2007 and from rental property to personal residence in 2008. They each claimed a capital loss and a terminal loss in 2008. CRA reduced both losses claimed and the Donaldsons appealed to the Tax Court. The Court struck Mrs. Donaldson’s appeal since her 2008 assessment was a nil assessment. In the case of Mr. Donaldson the Court dismissed his appeal on the basis that CRA’s computations of capital loss and terminal loss were both correct (apart from an understatement of the terminal loss in the amount of $7.99).
Donaldson v. R. - TCC: CRA’s computation of terminal loss on change of use correctPlus >

Marine Atlantic Inc. v. R. - TCC: Appellant in GST appeal not bound by prior agreement with Crown

9 mars 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Marine Atlantic had reached a prior agreement with the Crown to be bound by the results of a Tax Court Appeal being pursued by a competitor ferry operator (the “BCF appeal”). The Tax Court rendered its decision in the BCF appeal but the appellant rejected the decision on the basis that admissions made by the appellant in the BCF appeal would not be made in the appeal of Marine Atlantic. The Crown moved for an order that Marine Atlantic was bound by the prior agreement. The Tax Court held that the admissions at issue in the BCF appeal were such that they left the issue of GST Input Tax Credits unresolved in the Marine Atlantic appeal. As a result it declined to issue the order sought by the Crown.
Marine Atlantic Inc. v. R. - TCC: Appellant in GST appeal not bound by prior agreement with CrownPlus >

Canadian Forest Navigation v. R. - TCC: Crown not bound by foreign rectification orders

8 mars 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The appellant received payments in 2004, 2005 and 2006 from its foreign affiliates. The payments were described as dividends. Subsequently the appellant obtained rectification orders in Cyprus and Barbados declaring such payments not to be dividends but rather transfers that resulted in indebtedness by the appellant to the foreign affiliates in the amount of the transfers. The appellant applied for an order under section 58 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) that a question of law be determined before the hearing:
Canadian Forest Navigation v. R. - TCC: Crown not bound by foreign rectification ordersPlus >

Teranet Inc. v. R. - TCC: Court orders third parties examined for discovery

8 mars 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The underlying issue in this appeal was the disallowance of a portion of interest charges arising after a 2006 reorganization of a predecessor corporation of the appellant. The Crown took the position that the appellant had either refused or was unable to provide information about the 2006 reorganization. It therefore applied for an orders to discover third parties from two accounting firms that were involved in the 2006 reorganization. The Court concluded that the Crown had met the threshold for third party discoveries and granted the orders sought. Costs were awarded to the Crown.
Teranet Inc. v. R. - TCC: Court orders third parties examined for discoveryPlus >

Sherman v. R. - FCA: Taxpayer appeal of GST New Housing Rebate dismissed from bench

7 mars 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Mr. Sherman was denied a GST New Housing Rebate. His appeal to the Tax Court was dismissed and he appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found that the Tax Court Judge had made no reversible error in concluding that Mr. Sherman did not have the intention to occupy the property in question as his primary place of residence. As a result the appeal was dismissed from the bench with costs.
Sherman v. R. - FCA: Taxpayer appeal of GST New Housing Rebate dismissed from benchPlus >

Romanza Soins Capillairies v. R. - TCC: Esthetician at beauty spa not an employee

7 mars 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The appellant hired Ms. Riendeau as an esthetician for a period of 9 weeks in 2012. The sole issue before the Tax Court was whether she was engaged in insurable employment for EI purposes during that period. The Tax Court reviewed the well known tests and concluded that she was not an employee during that period of time. Accordingly the appeal was allowed.
Romanza Soins Capillairies v. R. - TCC: Esthetician at beauty spa not an employeePlus >

Loates v. R. - FCA: Section 160 spousal transfer appeal dismissed from the bench

4 mars 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is an appeal by the taxpayer from a Tax Court decision blogged earlier on this site. Mr. Loates’ spouse had transferred property to him at a time she had an outstanding income tax liability and he was assessed under subsection 160(1) of the Income Tax Act (the “ITA”) with respect to her unpaid income taxes. He was unsuccessful before the Tax Court and appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal where he raised a number of grounds of appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected all of his grounds of appeal and dismissed his appeal from the bench with costs.
Loates v. R. - FCA: Section 160 spousal transfer appeal dismissed from the benchPlus >

Nouvelles récentes

Archives