Blogue

Scheuer v. R. - FCA: CRA has no general duty to warn taxpayers of bad tax shelters

29 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: In a decision blogged earlier on this site the Federal Court dismissed the Crown’s motion to strike the statement of claim in this case. The plaintiffs are seeking a remedy against the Crown for its negligence in connection with a tax shelter in which they invested. The Crown appealed the Federal Court’s decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal recognized that there could be liability in connection with public officials acting “in a manner inconsistent with the proper and valid exercise of their statutory duties, in bad faith or in some other improper fashion” [para. 46] but found that such allegations had not been properly pleaded.
Scheuer v. R. - FCA: CRA has no general duty to warn taxpayers of bad tax sheltersPlus >

Lui v. R. - FCA: GST appeal dismissed - no reversible error in TCC decision

29 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer claimed a New Housing Rebate which was denied by CRA since she bought the land from one company and the home from another. The taxpayer dismissed her appeal on this point. It also held that she was out of time for another rebate, the “owner-built” rebate. The taxpayer appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal, with costs, as it did not disclose any reversible error in the Tax Court.
Lui v. R. - FCA: GST appeal dismissed - no reversible error in TCC decisionPlus >

7547978 Canada Inc. v. R. - TCC: Penalties sustained for failure to file T4s for employees

28 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The only point at issue in this appeal was whether CRA was entitled to impose penalties for a failure to file T4 slips for workers found to be employees in separate Tax Court proceedings. The Court concluded that the penalties (imposed under the Income Tax Act) were justified and dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal. There was no costs order as this was an informal procedure appeal
7547978 Canada Inc. v. R. - TCC: Penalties sustained for failure to file T4s for employeesPlus >

Green v. R. - TCC: Business losses not trapped in second level partnership

28 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: This is a report of a determination of a legal question under section 58 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure). The question at issue was as follows:
Green v. R. - TCC: Business losses not trapped in second level partnershipPlus >

Agence océanica inc. v. R. - TCC: Placement agency nurses were in insurable employment

27 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The appellant operated a placement agency which placed nurses at various institutions and private homes. The only question before the Court was whether the 189 nurses involved provided services “for and under the direction and control of a client of” the appellant. The Court reviewed the facts and concluded that the nurses were in fact subject to the control and directions of the persons for whom they provided the services. As a result the appeal was dismissed.
Agence océanica inc. v. R. - TCC: Placement agency nurses were in insurable employmentPlus >

Naraine v. R. - FCA: Taxpayer did not produce evidence of expenses - no reversible error

27 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The Tax Court decision in this case was blogged earlier on this site. Mr. Naraine spent 21 years pursuing a remedy against Ford after his employment was terminated. The Tax Court held that the payment he received was taxable either as a retiring allowance or as interest. It also rejected his claim for the deduction of legal fee above the amount of $16,700 allowed by CRA. The Tax Court held that he had not adequately proven such additional legal expenses. Mr. Naraine appealed that finding with respect to legal fees. The Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the Tax Court and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Naraine v. R. - FCA: Taxpayer did not produce evidence of expenses - no reversible errorPlus >

TricomCanada Inc. v. R - TCC: GST appeal - invoices produced were fraudulent

26 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: This decision is fact intensive but, in the end, fairly simple. CRA denied input tax credits (“ITCs”) of roughly $1,000,000 to the taxpayer on the purchase of gold from its alleged suppliers. CRA claimed, and the Court accepted, that the invoices it relied upon from its alleged suppliers were fraudulent and designed to conceal the identity of the person or persons actually supplying the gold.
TricomCanada Inc. v. R - TCC: GST appeal - invoices produced were fraudulentPlus >

Olumide v. R. - FCA: No error by the Tax Court Judge - appeal dismissed

26 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer brought an application before Justice Woods in the Tax Court seeking to reopen two previous orders of the Tax Court made in separate GST appeals. Justice Woods dismissed the application without allowing an oral hearing on the basis that the two previous orders were both final and there was no basis upon which they could be reopened. On appeal the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that there was no error on the part of Justice Woods and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Olumide v. R. - FCA: No error by the Tax Court Judge - appeal dismissedPlus >

Leibovich v. R. - TCC: Tuition fees at non-specialist school not “medical expenses”

22 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: The taxpayer’s son had a learning disability and she placed him in a private high school with a good reputation for dealing with such problems. She claimed the tuition expense as a medical expense. CRA denied the deduction of the tuition expense and she appealed to the Tax Court. The Court dismissed the appeal, without costs, on the basis that the school in question did not have programs or equipment specifically addressing the son’s disability. It was a good school, but not a specialist school.
Leibovich v. R. - TCC: Tuition fees at non-specialist school not “medical expenses”Plus >

Lambert v. R. - FC: Mixed success on judicial review of farm loss relief

22 janvier 2016 By Bill Innes

Précis: Three different taxpayers (Mr. Gillespie, Ms. Lambert and Mr. Sobey) applied in 2013 for relief in respect of their horse racing losses incurred during the period from 2003 to 2011. This happened after the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2012 decision in R v Craig, 2012 SCC 43 which over-ruled its earlier decision in Moldowan v R, [1978] 1 SCR 480 and broadened the circumstances under which farming losses (which included losses from horse racing activities) could be deducted against other sources of income. The Minister denied all three applications for relief on the basis that they were solely motivated by the Craig decision.
Lambert v. R. - FC: Mixed success on judicial review of farm loss reliefPlus >

Nouvelles récentes

Archives