Archives - mars 2018

• 

  DiLalla v. R. – FCA: Decision that production requests overly broad and vague did not disclose reviewable error

  13 mars 2018 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: At discovery Mr. DiLalla had asked for three kinds of documents from the Crown, all of which were refused: (1) all policies and interpretations of the Canada Revenue Agency that mention or are in relation to personal endeavours and hobbies, (2) all such documents relating to gross negligence penalties, and (3) Canada Revenue Agency’s policies as to whether a net worth audit should be completed. He appealed that refusal to the Tax Court which declined to order their production on the basis that the requests were overly broad and vague. He appealed the first two categories to the Federal Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal, with costs, as not disclosing a reviewable error.
  DiLalla v. R. – FCA: Decision that production requests overly broad and vague did not disclose reviewable errorPlus >
• 

  Nagel v. R. – TCC: No appeal from a nil assessment

  12 mars 2018 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: Ms. Nagel was reassessed in February of 2016 for her 2013 taxation year. The reassessment was a nil assessment and showed her as resident in Saskatchewan. In November of 2016 she was again reassessed for 2013. The second reassessment was also a nil assessment and this time showed her as a resident of Nova Scotia. Ms. Nagel applied to the Tax Court for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal. The application was denied since there is no appeal from a nil assessment. There was no order as to costs.
  Nagel v. R. – TCC: No appeal from a nil assessmentPlus >
• 

  VLN Advanced Technologies v. R. – TCC: No SRED allowed for purchased capital equipment

  9 mars 2018 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: In its taxation year ended December 31, 2012 the taxpayer claimed the amount of $453,323 as a scientific research and experimental development (“SRED”) capital expenditure. The expenditure represented the purchase price of “automated Pure Pulse Waterjet System equipment” from Pratt and Whiney Military Aftermarket Services Inc. (“Pratt”). As part of the purchase agreement the taxpayer agreed to provide $450,000 of research and engineering services to Pratt using the equipment. CRA denied the SRED claim on the basis that the property was not purchased to be used for all or substantially all of its operating time for the prosecution of SRED in Canada. CRA’s position was that the property was acquired to provide services to Pratt and others as an R&D subcontract provider. On the evidence the Court accepted CRA’s position and dismissed the appeal with costs.
  VLN Advanced Technologies v. R. – TCC: No SRED allowed for purchased capital equipmentPlus >
• 

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

  9 mars 2018 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

  • 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 CourtPlus >
• 

  Margolin v. R. – TCC: New Housing Rebate denied – not primary place of residence

  8 mars 2018 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: In March of 2014 the taxpayer took occupancy of a property known as 116 Riding Mountain Drive, Richmond Hill, Ontario. He sold the property in August of 2014. The sole issue before the Tax Court was whether he acquired the property for use as his primary place of residence for the purposes of obtaining a HST New Housing Rebate. During the period he owned the Riding Mountain Drive he also owned a large home situate on 11 acres of property in King City, Ontario which he still owned at the date of the trial of this appeal. The Tax Court rejected his evidence that he had occupied the Riding Mountain Drive property as his primary place of residence in 2014 and dismissed the appeal. These was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
  Margolin v. R. – TCC: New Housing Rebate denied – not primary place of residencePlus >
• 

  DaCosta v. R. – TCC: Gross negligence penalties set aside for one of two taxpayers in property “flips”

  7 mars 2018 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: In 2006 Cynthia DaCosta, a real estate agent, arranged to purchase two condos, one in her own name and one in the name of her 17 year old granddaughter. The sales closed in 2010. Cynthia sold her granddaughter’s condo one month later and her condo two months later, each at a profit of roughly $100,000. Neither reported any income from the sales. CRA assessed the sales as being on income account and imposed gross negligence penalties. The Tax Court dismissed Cynthia’s appeal, with costs, but allowed her granddaughter’s appeal, without costs, to the extent of vacating the gross negligence penalties.
  DaCosta v. R. – TCC: Gross negligence penalties set aside for one of two taxpayers in property “flips”Plus >
• 

  Amrite v. R. – TCC: No extension of time to file Notices of Appeal for 2002, 2003 tax shelters

  6 mars 2018 By Bill Innes

  catégories:

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

  Précis: Five taxpayers were involved in a tax shelter donation program. Their reassessments were confirmed by CRA and they failed to file Notices of Appeal within the 90 days required. They each applied to the Tax Court for an order extending the time to file Notices of Appeal. The Court dismissed the application on the basis that they had not made a case that it would be “just and equitable” to grant the extensions sought in light of the conduct of the taxpayers and their representatives.
  Amrite v. R. – TCC: No extension of time to file Notices of Appeal for 2002, 2003 tax sheltersPlus >