Recent Posts

Posts tagged "Federal Court of Appeal"

Friedman v. R. – FCA: Court declines to set aside compliance order – subsection 231.7(1)
Jun 01, 2021 By Bill Innes
Categories:
Précis: Mr. and Mrs. Friedman received requests for information which they did not provide to CRA. CRA then moved in the Federal Court for a compliance order under subsection 231.7(1) which was granted. The Friedmans argued in the Federal Court that the compliance order should not be granted on two bases: [11] The Friedmans initially challenged the request for information on the basis that the procedure under subsection 231.1(1) infringed their right to liberty, and their protection against self-incrimination pursuant to sections 7, 11(c), and 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter). Subsequently, they applied for and were granted leave to plead that the Federal Court should follow another Federal Court decision on the same issue, Canada (National Revenue) v. Lin, 2019 FC 646 [Lin], in which the Federal Court dismissed an application for a compliance order pursuant to subsection 232.7(1). In that case, the Court found that “the Letters are addressed to both the individuals and their connected entities. The entities are not specified, and it is not clear who is being audited - the individual Respondents or unnamed entities”: Lin at para. 31. Their arguments were unsuccessful in the Federal Court and they appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. Pelletier J.A. writing for the Court rejected the argument based on a failure to follow the Lin decision because the Judge had correctly distinguished the Lin case. He also rejected the self-incrimination arguments at this stage of proceedings based in part on the Jarvis decision and in part on the absence of a sufficient factual record. Thus the appeal was dismissed with costs. While the Minister asked for additional costs based on the Friedmans having abandoned some of their constitutional arguments at the last minute Pelletier J.A. found that the mischief involved was not such as to merit an increased costs award.
Friedman v. R. – FCA: Court declines to set aside compliance order – subsection 231.7(1)READ MORE »
Xia v. R. – FCA: Pooled tips were not a non-taxable windfall to slot machine attendant – gross negligence penalties sustained
Mar 19, 2020 By Bill Innes
Categories:
Précis: The taxpayer was a slot machine attendant. He was assessed for his share of pooled tips and the Minister imposed gross negligence penalties. The taxpayer argued in the Tax Court that the amount was a non-taxable windfall. He was unsuccessful in the Tax Court and appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the bench, with costs.
Xia v. R. – FCA: Pooled tips were not a non-taxable windfall to slot machine attendant – gross negligence penalties sustainedREAD MORE »
Meerman v. R. – FCA: No reversible error by trial judge in allowing cross-examination of taxpayer on association with Paradigm Education Group
Jun 28, 2019 By Bill Innes
Categories:
Précis: The taxpayer did not report slightly more than one million dollars of income during the period 2006-2011. He was assessed on this income (which included opening otherwise statute-barred years) and gross negligence penalties were imposed. The taxpayer, who was self-represented, claimed that the amounts in questions were not taxable income, but rather proceeds of a “non-commercial personal endeavour” [para. [4]]. The Tax Court Judge dismissed his appeal and he appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal on a number of grounds, all of which were rejected. Thus the appeal was dismissed with costs fixed in the amount of $1,700 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.
Meerman v. R. – FCA: No reversible error by trial judge in allowing cross-examination of taxpayer on association with Paradigm Education GroupREAD MORE »
Kibalian v. R. – FCA: Federal Court of Appeal sets aside costs order by Tax Court for failure of natural justice
Jun 25, 2019 By Bill Innes
Categories:
Précis: The taxpayer appealed reassessments for the 2006-2010 taxation years. The Tax Court, of its own motion, awarded $7,500 in costs against the taxpayer in pre-trial proceedings and subsequently dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal (or, possibly, appeals – it is not clear from the decision) for failure to pay the outstanding costs award. The Court of Appeal found that the Tax Court violated the rules of natural justice and set aside that portion of the Tax Court order directing the payment of $7,500 in costs. The taxpayer did not seek costs in the Court of Appeal and none were awarded.
Kibalian v. R. – FCA: Federal Court of Appeal sets aside costs order by Tax Court for failure of natural justiceREAD MORE »
Wilson v. R. – FCA: Tax Court dismisses appeal on procedural grounds – Court of Appeal upholds Tax Court
Jun 13, 2019 By Bill Innes
Categories:
Précis: The Tax Court struck portions of the taxpayer’s Notice of Appeal and gave him 60 days to file an amended Notice of Appeal, which he failed to do. The Tax Court then ordered the taxpayer to file a compliant Notice of Appeal within 60 days. The taxpayer filed an amended Notice of Appeal and the Tax Court Judge concluded that the amended Notice of Appeal did not comply with the two preceding orders and dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal (per curiam) held that while dismissing an appeal on procedural grounds was a “severe remedy” there was “no palpable and overriding error of fact or mixed fact and law and no error of law by the Tax Court” so as to permit the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal [para. [25]]. Thus the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Wilson v. R. – FCA: Tax Court dismisses appeal on procedural grounds – Court of Appeal upholds Tax CourtREAD MORE »
Goheen v. R. – FCA: Crown not required to amend pleadings to rely upon evidence disclosed by discovery of taxpayer – no reversible error
May 22, 2019 By Bill Innes
Categories:
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 errorREAD MORE »
Viterra Inc. v. R. – FCA: FCA declines to interfere with Tax Court’s decision not to permit a Rule 58 determination of statute-barring issue
Apr 17, 2019 By Bill Innes
Categories:
- Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
- Commodity Tax
Précis: This GST case was blogged in the Tax Court last year on this site. The taxpayer, formerly known as the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, administered three pension funds during the periods from August 1, 2003 to July 31, 2004 and August 1, 2004 to July 31, 2005. It used the services of investment managers to provide services (the Investment Services) to the funds. CRA reassessed the taxpayer in 2016 allowing investment tax credits on the fees paid to the investment manages but imposing GST on the supply of the Investment Services by the taxpayer to the funds. The taxpayer applied pursuant to Rule 58 for the determination of a question: ... The Tax Court ruled that it did not have enough evidence to answer the question and ruled that the matter should be determined by the trial judge. The taxpayer and the Crown both appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal arguing that the Motion Judge erred in holding he did not have enough evidence to answer the question. The Crown also argued on appeal that the Judge erred in law in his interpretation of the limits on the Minister’s reassessing powers under subsection 298(3) of the Excise Tax Act, in response to a notice of objection, after the expiry of the normal limitation period. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal holding that the Motion Judge was owed a high degree of deference in the exercise of his discretion when considering a Rule 58 question. The Crown’s cross-appeal was also dismissed as it was an appeal of the reasons, not the decision. Thus both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed without costs.
Viterra Inc. v. R. – FCA: FCA declines to interfere with Tax Court’s decision not to permit a Rule 58 determination of statute-barring issueREAD MORE »
Gratl v. R. – FCA: No palpable and overriding error in Tax Court finding that taxpayer received notices of reassessment
Jan 21, 2019 By Bill Innes
Categories:
Précis: The taxpayer applied to the Tax Court for an extension of time to file notices of appeal for her 2003 and 2004 taxation years. She argued that she never received the notices of reassessment, did not file notices of objection to them and did not receive notices of confirmation from CRA. Visser J. rejected her application, accepting CRA’s evidence that the notices of reassessment had been sent to her, that her accountant had filed notices of objection and that the reassessments had been confirmed. He drew a negative inference from her failure to call her accountant. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, with costs fixed at $1,000, on the basis that Ms. Gratl had failed to establish a palpable and overriding error on the part of the Tax Court Judge.
Gratl v. R. – FCA: No palpable and overriding error in Tax Court finding that taxpayer received notices of reassessmentREAD MORE »
Yu v. R. – FCA: Appeal of section 160 assessment dismissed by Federal Court of Appeal
Apr 13, 2018 By Bill Innes
Categories:
Précis: The taxpayer was assessed pursuant to section 160 of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) in respect of a transfer to him by his sister-in-law. He appealed unsuccessfully to the Tax Court. He next appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. He had two grounds of appeal: 1. the Tax Court Judge incorrectly refused to allow him to break his direct examination to consult with his lawyer; and 2. the Tax Court Judge incorrectly rejected an argument that the monies transferred were the subject of a trust created by his mother-in-law. The Court of Appeal rejected both grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Yu v. R. – FCA: Appeal of section 160 assessment dismissed by Federal Court of AppealREAD MORE »
Dirani v. R. – FCA: FCA sets aside Tax Court decision where Crown admits prior counsel misinformed the Tax Court
Apr 05, 2018 By Bill Innes
Categories:
Précis: While it is not entirely clear from the decision it appears that the Tax Court dismissed Mr. Dirani’s appeal where he did not appear pursuant to a Notice of Hearing. He moved unsuccessfully to set aside that decision. Mr. Dirani appealed that decision to the Federal Court of Appeal where the new Crown counsel informed the Court of Appeal that prior Crown counsel had misinformed the Tax Court that Mr. Dirani was “refusing to accept registered mail.” Accordingly the Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the Tax Court in an opinion rendered from the bench. They ordered that Mr. Dirani’s application remitted to the Tax Court for “determination on a full and complete record” [para. [3]]. There was no order as to costs.
Dirani v. R. – FCA: FCA sets aside Tax Court decision where Crown admits prior counsel misinformed the Tax CourtREAD MORE »

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives