Archives - septembre 2016

• 

  Stuckless v. R. - TCC: Incorporated bricklayer not engaged in insurable employment

  14 septembre 2016 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Employment Insurance/CPP

  Précis: Mr. Stuckless was a bricklayer for 16 years. He incorporated a company of which he owned 20% of the shares and his spouse and father each owned 40% of the shares. His evidence was that he thought that the use of the corporation would allow him to claim EI benefits when necessary. CRA denied his claim for EI benefits and he appealed to the Tax Court. The Court held that he was not engaged in employment similar to arm’s length employment and dismissed his appeal. There was no order as to costs.
  Stuckless v. R. - TCC: Incorporated bricklayer not engaged in insurable employmentPlus >
• 

  1716790 Ontario Inc. v. R. - TCC: Corporate taxpayer must answer questions about a major owner

  12 septembre 2016 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: Although this case involves very detailed refusal issues it boils down to whether the corporate taxpayer can be forced to answer questions about a non-majority, but major, shareholder who is alleged in the Crown’s Reply to be its controlling mind. The central issue in the case is whether the corporate taxpayer was in the business of building and selling retirement homes, as was alleged by the Crown, or whether it held the homes as capital property.
  1716790 Ontario Inc. v. R. - TCC: Corporate taxpayer must answer questions about a major ownerPlus >
• 

  DiCienzo v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer denied ABIL, debt not established to be disposed of or bad

  9 septembre 2016 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: The taxpayer claimed an allowable business investment loss (“ABIL”) in 2010 after he and his wife sold their shares in a motor inn they had jointly owned with other shareholders. The taxpayer claimed to have advanced money to the corporation over the years and that the debt owing at the date of the sale was in excess of $500,000.
  DiCienzo v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer denied ABIL, debt not established to be disposed of or badPlus >
• 

  Rubinov-Liberman v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer was shared-custody parent, only 50% of Child Tax Credit

  9 septembre 2016 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: The issue was whether the taxpayer was a primary custody parent of her two children during the periods in question or whether she was a shared-custody parent with her former spouse. The Court held that she was a shared-custody parent of both children commencing in March of 2014 but prior to March of 2014 she was not a shared-custody parent of her son. The Minister was directed to revise her decision accordingly. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
  Rubinov-Liberman v. R. - TCC: Taxpayer was shared-custody parent, only 50% of Child Tax CreditPlus >
• 

  Anthony v. R. - FCt: Judicial review denied - expenses were corporate not personal

  8 septembre 2016 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: This decision had a somewhat convoluted history but in the end it boiled down to the fact that Mr. Anthony had made a taxpayer relief application to CRA asking that he be allowed to deduct lease payments personally in the case of two machines that were, as a matter of law, leased by a corporation owned by him. CRA denied the application and Mr. Anthony applied for judicial review of that decision.
  Anthony v. R. - FCt: Judicial review denied - expenses were corporate not personalPlus >
• 

  Kalryzian v. R. - TCC: Salesman denied inflated expense claims, rental loss

  8 septembre 2016 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: Mr. Kalryzian, who was self-represented, claimed deductions exceeding 50% of his gross income from his employment as a salesperson in each of the 2007 and 2008 taxation years. CRA denied the bulk of the expense claims, including a claim of roughly $9,000 in 2008 from a partial rental property (he and his girlfriend jointly owned the property and lived in a portion of it). Mr. Kalryzian appealed to the Tax Court.
  Kalryzian v. R. - TCC: Salesman denied inflated expense claims, rental lossPlus >
• 

  Herrington v. R. - FCt: Judicial review of taxpayer relief application denied

  6 septembre 2016 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: The applicant omitted amounts of investment income in his 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2013 tax returns. He was assessed penalties and interest in each of 2011, 2012 and 2013. He obtained relief against the penalties and interest in 2011. He then applied for relief in 2012 and 2013 which was denied. He applied to the Federal Court for judicial review and argued that there was a duty on the part of CRA to advise taxpayers when they omitted to report investment income on their tax returns in cases where CRA had received T3 or T5 forms from the payee of such income. The Federal Court dismissed the application with costs of $500, all inclusive, to the Crown.
  Herrington v. R. - FCt: Judicial review of taxpayer relief application deniedPlus >