Recent Posts

• 

  McCartie v. R. – TCC: Rule 58(1) motion denied on issues arising from prior criminal prosecution in which the Appellant was acquitted

  Oct 16, 2018 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

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

  Précis: The Appellant had been prosecuted for tax evasion. He and his co-accused wife were both acquitted. During the course of the criminal trial certain evidence was ruled inadmissible on the basis of Charter violations. The Appellant moved for a determination of certain questions pursuant to Rule 58(1) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (the Rules). Bocock J. dismissed his motion on the basis that the sorts of questions raised were better left to the trier of fact during the course of an actual trial. He awarded costs to the Respondent.
  McCartie v. R. – TCC: Rule 58(1) motion denied on issues arising from prior criminal prosecution in which the Appellant was acquittedREAD MORE »
• 

  Hillman v. R. – TCC: Court declines CRA’s application in RRSP strip cases to have Rule 58(1) determinations in respect of prior prosecutions of the promoters of the RRSP strips

  Aug 09, 2018 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

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

  Précis: The taxpayers were all reassessed in respect of what CRA alleged were RRSP strips. The promoters of those strips were convicted in two separate criminal proceedings. CRA sought to have the Court make a determination under Rule 58 either that the taxpayers could not dispute the factual findings in one of the two criminal cases (the Kendall decision) on the basis of the abuse of process doctrine or, in the alternative, that the factual findings in the Kendall decision were prima facie evidence of the facts and conclusions listed in the Crown’s Reply. Justice Russell held that neither of the Crown’s proposed remedies were appropriate uses of Rule 58(1) and dismissed the application with one set of costs to the Appellants in accordance with the Tariff.
  Hillman v. R. – TCC: Court declines CRA’s application in RRSP strip cases to have Rule 58(1) determinations in respect of prior prosecutions of the promoters of the RRSP stripsREAD MORE »
• 

  Lehigh Hanson Materials Limited v. R. – TCC: Court rejects Rule 58(1) application for complex SRED issues

  Mar 15, 2018 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

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

  Précis: In a rather odd application the taxpayer wanted a ruling under Rule 58(1) on whether the character of research it conducted was affected by similar research done by its competitors. Not surprisingly the Tax Court declined jurisdiction leaving the matter to the trial judge who would have a greater command of the underlying facts once the evidence was adduced.
  Lehigh Hanson Materials Limited v. R. – TCC: Court rejects Rule 58(1) application for complex SRED issuesREAD MORE »
• 

  Viterra Inc. v. R. – TCC: Subsection 58(1) ruling denied on complex GST question - salient facts not before the Court

  Mar 09, 2018 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

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

  Précis: The taxpayer moved under Rule 58(1) for determination of an issue: Was the Minister statute barred on February 19, 2016 from assessing GST collectible totalling $640,492.69 on the supply of investment management services made by the Appellant to three pension plan trusts (assuming such supplies were made), for the reporting periods from August 1, 2003 to July 31, 2004 and from August 1, 2004 to July 31, 2005? The taxpayer argued that the new reassessments, which arose out of prior assessments to which it had objected, arose out of separate transactions and were, accordingly, statute-barred. The Tax Court held that this was not an appropriate case for a determination under Rule 58(1) since many of the necessary facts were not before the Court and that the matter should be determined by the trial judge. There was no order as to costs since the Crown had consented to the Rule 58(1) hearing.
  Viterra Inc. v. R. – TCC: Subsection 58(1) ruling denied on complex GST question - salient facts not before the CourtREAD MORE »
• 

  Cougar Helicopters v. R. - TCC: Rule 58(1) not appropriate for resolution of statute-barring issue

  Jul 18, 2017 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

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

  Précis: The taxpayer moved for a determination under Rule 58(1) whether the reassessment under appeal was void ab initio because it was not accompanied by an allegation that the Appellant made any misrepresentation or committed any fraud in filing its tax returns or in supplying any other information under the Act for its 2011 taxation year ended December 31, 2011. The Tax Court dismissed the application on the basis, inter alia, that an allegation of misrepresentation or fraud was implicit in the issuance of an otherwise statute-barred reassessment. As a result the application was dismissed with costs to the Crown in any event of the cause.
  Cougar Helicopters v. R. - TCC: Rule 58(1) not appropriate for resolution of statute-barring issueREAD MORE »
• 

  Marples v. R. - TCC: Another Rule 58 application bites the dust - complaints about SIN taxes it seems

  Jul 18, 2017 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

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

  Précis: Mr. Marples was assessed tax and penalties in respect two sources of unreported income. He ultimately accepted tax on both of the sources, in excess of $1 million of insurance commissions, but disputed the penalties. He sought to have his appeal determined in part under a Rule 58 application in which he seems to suggest that the taxation of his commission income depended upon the use of the terms “social insurance number”, “Social Insurance Number” and “SIN” in various part of the Income Tax Act, Regulations and forms. Presumably he also wanted to argue that this confusion should relieve him of penalties imposed on such income.
  Marples v. R. - TCC: Another Rule 58 application bites the dust - complaints about SIN taxes it seemsREAD MORE »
• 

  Paletta v. R. - FCA: Appeal from refusal to permit a Rule 58(1) hearing on penalties dismissed from Bench

  Mar 09, 2017 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

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

  Précis: The taxpayer applied in the Tax Court for a Rule 58(1) application to determine whether penalties attributable to neglect, carelessness or wilful default were applicable in his tax appeal. Owen J. of the Tax Court refused the application on the basis that the matter was best determined at trial. The taxpayer appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal from the bench, with costs, finding no reversible error in the decision of Justice Owen.
  Paletta v. R. - FCA: Appeal from refusal to permit a Rule 58(1) hearing on penalties dismissed from BenchREAD MORE »
• 

  Aitchison Professional Corporation v. R. - TCC: No summary hearing on tax debtor’s transfer of right to invoice

  Jan 30, 2017 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

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

  Précis: The taxpayer corporation invoiced for the legal services of its principal, James Aitchison, a lawyer who owed in excess of $2,000,000 to the Crown in unpaid income taxes. CRA assessed the corporate taxpayer pursuant to subsection 160(1) of the Act on the basis that its principal had transferred in excess of $2,000,000 of assets to it at a time when he was indebted to the Crown for unpaid income taxes. The taxpayer corporation applied for the determination of two points of law under Rule 58 of the Tax Court of Canada (General Procedure) Rules.
  Aitchison Professional Corporation v. R. - TCC: No summary hearing on tax debtor’s transfer of right to invoiceREAD MORE »
• 

  Suncor Energy Inc. v. R. TCC: Court allows motion to determine point of law - Rule 58(1)

  Sep 08, 2015 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

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

  Précis: Both the taxpayer and the Crown brought applications for determinations of points of law pursuant to Rule 58(1) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure). The Crown moved for a ruling on four points of which the Court struck three because they were not supported by the Crown’s pleadings. The Crown’s remaining point was, to all intents and purposes, the same point raised in the taxpayer’s application although the Court favoured the drafting used by the Crown. The Court allowed a Rule 58(1) application to proceed, using the Crown’s language.
  Suncor Energy Inc. v. R. TCC: Court allows motion to determine point of law - Rule 58(1)READ MORE »
• 

  Ironside v. R. - TCC: Court orders hearing whether decision in prior tax years gives rise to issue estoppel - Rule 58

  May 21, 2015 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

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

  Précis: In 2013 the Tax Court reached a decision dismissing Mr. Ironside’s appeal concerning the deduction in 2003 and 2004 (and resulting losses applied to 2002 and 2006) of legal and other professional fees to defend himself against allegations of committing improper disclosures after being charged in June of 2001 by the Alberta Securities Commission.
  Ironside v. R. - TCC: Court orders hearing whether decision in prior tax years gives rise to issue estoppel - Rule 58READ MORE »