Archives - juillet 2017

• 

  Acacia Mining Hit with $190 Billion Tax Reassessment

  31 juillet 2017 By Taxnet Pro

  catégories:

  • Corporate Tax
  • Federal Income Tax
  • International Tax

  Acacia Mining has been reassessed by the Tanzania Revenue Authority for US$190 billion on alleged unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest.
  Acacia Mining Hit with $190 Billion Tax ReassessmentPlus >
• 

  The Mark Anthony Group v. R. - TCC: Product added after fermentation of cider does not vitiate duty exemption

  31 juillet 2017 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: The taxpayer manufactured fermented cider. It claimed an exemption (roughly $2 million) under the Excise Act, 2001 (the “EA”) on the basis that all of the products used in the fermentation process were of Canadian origin. CRA denied the...
  The Mark Anthony Group v. R. - TCC: Product added after fermentation of cider does not vitiate duty exemptionPlus >
• 

  When is a TFSA not Tax Free?

  27 juillet 2017

  catégories:

  • Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

  The Canada Revenue Agency recently confirmed their concern about non-passive investments in TFSAs. When might this be an issue?
  When is a TFSA not Tax Free?Plus >
• 

  Are owner-manager shareholders more likely to incur gross negligence penalties?

  25 juillet 2017

  catégories:

  • Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

  On May 29, 2017, the Tax Court of Canada decided Struck v. The Queen, 2017 TCC 94, finding the taxpayer grossly negligent. How consistent was this decision with prior decisions?
  Are owner-manager shareholders more likely to incur gross negligence penalties?Plus >
• 

  Mullings v. R. - TCC: Child with PKU disorder eligible for disability tax credit

  20 juillet 2017 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: The taxpayer’s youngest child, X, suffered from “classical phenylketonuria (“PKU”). PKU is a genetic disorder that eliminates or severely restricts the body’s ability to metabolize phenylalanine (“Phe”)” [para. 1]. Left untreated PKU can lead to brain damage. The taxpayer, who was very familiar with PKU since her first child also suffered from it (the older child was not a subject of the appeal), followed a very vigilant regimen to protect X’s health. The question before the Court was whether PKU fell within the definition of “mental or physical impairment” for the purposes of the disability tax credit (“DTC”). CRA held it did not and the taxpayer appealed to the Tax Court.
  Mullings v. R. - TCC: Child with PKU disorder eligible for disability tax creditPlus >
• 

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

  18 juillet 2017 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • 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 issuePlus >
• 

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

  18 juillet 2017 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • 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 seemsPlus >
• 

  When is a worker an employee for tax purposes?

  18 juillet 2017

  catégories:

  • Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

  On April 6, 2017, the Tax Court of Canada decided Coathup v. MNR, 2017 TCC 54, finding the worker was an employee. How consistent was this decision with prior decisions?
  When is a worker an employee for tax purposes?Plus >
• 

  Woessner v. R. - TCC: Firm removed from file where its lawyers would be material witnesses

  17 juillet 2017 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: The Crown moved to disqualify taxpayer’s counsel on the basis that lawyers of the firm would be material witnesses at trial. The Court allowed the motion, with costs.
  Woessner v. R. - TCC: Firm removed from file where its lawyers would be material witnessesPlus >
• 

  Lawson v. R. - TCC: Joint custody taxpayer entitled to dependent tax credits

  17 juillet 2017 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: In the case of joint custody of children there is a considerable body of case law that a parent making a support payment is not entitled to dependent tax credits unless the other parent makes similar payments. The courts have held that a netting of support obligations resulting in one parent making the net payment to the other does not suffice for these purposes and the payer parent is not entitled to tax credits. In this case Mr. Justice Miller accepted, on the peculiar facts before him, that the intention of the parties was that each would make a support payment and that the net payment made by the husband (which also took into account travel expenses on top of his support obligations) was not central to their bargain. On that basis he was prepared to allow Mr. Lawson the credits claimed for 2013. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
  Lawson v. R. - TCC: Joint custody taxpayer entitled to dependent tax creditsPlus >