Archives - mai 2019

• 

  Goheen v. R. – FCA: Crown not required to amend pleadings to rely upon evidence disclosed by discovery of taxpayer – no reversible error

  22 mai 2019 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  Précis: The taxpayer claimed a US $30,000 charitable donation which CRA denied on the basis of absence of donative intent and imposed gross negligence penalties. During discoveries of the taxpayer it appeared that US $30,000 was subsequently deposited in the same account from which the alleged donation was made. The Crown relied upon that evidence at trial and the Tax Court dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal. The taxpayer appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal arguing, in part, that the Crown should have amended it pleadings if it intended to rely upon the US $30,000 deposit to support the disallowance of the alleged gift. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the bench holding that the deposit was simply evidence of the taxpayer that was relied upon by the Crown to support its assessing position, i.e., absence of donative intent. Costs were awarded to the Crown.
  Goheen v. R. – FCA: Crown not required to amend pleadings to rely upon evidence disclosed by discovery of taxpayer – no reversible errorPlus >
• 

  Trower v. R. – TCC: Amounts of dividends paid without proper corporate authority not taxable in the hands of former director/shareholder

  16 mai 2019 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  Précis: The taxpayer and her estranged spouse were shareholders and directors of Cove BD Inc. (Cove). They separated in the Fall of 2015. The taxpayer ceased to be a director and shareholder of Cove on October 2, 2016 (or, possibly, September 30, 2016). In February of 2017 her husband caused Cove to declare retroactive dividends of $50, 342 payable to the taxpayer in 2016 (representing a taxable amount of $58,900). CRA assessed her in respect of the alleged dividends and she appealed to the Tax Court. The Tax Court Judge found that Cove could not legally pay dividends to the taxpayer in respect of the period of 2016 in which she was a director and shareholder without her concurrence, which she had not given. Accordingly the appeal was allowed. The parties were to bear their own costs.
  Trower v. R. – TCC: Amounts of dividends paid without proper corporate authority not taxable in the hands of former director/shareholderPlus >
• 

  Burton v. R. – TCC: Insufficient evidence of binding legal agreement to permit deduction of support payments in 2013

  14 mai 2019 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  Précis: The taxpayer sought to deduct spousal support payments made in 2013. CRA allowed deductions for payments made in 2014 and 2015 on the basis that a finalized separation agreement was entered into in 2015 since under the provisions of the Income Tax Act deductions were permitted in “the year and previous year” in which the agreement was reached. CRA denied the deduction for 2013 on the basis that no binding separation agreement was reached in either 2013 or in 2014. The taxpayer appealed to the Tax Court which agreed with CRA’s position and dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal, but without costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
  Burton v. R. – TCC: Insufficient evidence of binding legal agreement to permit deduction of support payments in 2013Plus >
• 

  CRL Engineering Ltd. v. R. – TCC: “Real‑Time Vehicle Arrival Prediction Model for Transitlive” research project to predict movements of transit buses was entitled to SRED credits

  1 mai 2019 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Corporate Tax
  • Federal Income Tax

  Précis: The taxpayer claimed SRED credits for a research project known as “A Real‑Time Vehicle Arrival Prediction Model for Transitlive” which was designed to provide accurate real‑time predictions for public transit bus movements. The Court reviewed the five traditional tests for determining whether research met the SRED criteria and concluded that this project did. Thus the appeal was allowed, limited to $25,000 per taxation year since the appellant had pursued the informal procedure option.
  CRL Engineering Ltd. v. R. – TCC: “Real‑Time Vehicle Arrival Prediction Model for Transitlive” research project to predict movements of transit buses was entitled to SRED creditsPlus >