Search - connection

Similarly, there was no consistent evidence regarding the time, duration, or actual dates for the sale or disposal of such inventory. c)      Nature of the section 159 Assessment (i) The assessment process [34]          The CRA audited the EMI Group, firstly in connection with the charitable donation tax shelter and, thereafter, in connection with the outstanding tax liability of various related companies. ... Groscki’s capacity as a fiduciary or “legal representative” of EMI Macao or, more appropriately for pleadings of fact, specific actions or omissions in connection with EMI Macao which support factually such a conclusion of “legal representative” prior to its assumed cessation of existence in June 2004. ...

The final Position Paper in fact relies heavily on HQ sanctioned positions developed by the Vancouver TSO in connection with a similar type of audit. [35] [Emphasis added.] [41]          It is clear that the CRA was conducting simultaneous audits, in various CRA offices, of different taxpayers involved in transactions very similar to the transactions engaged in by the Appellant. ... Andrews, contain numerous references to information made available to her by other CRA offices. [43]          The following are examples of such references in the Audit Plan:-             Under the heading “Work Completed as of October, 2009”: [Liaison] with CRA contacts in Vancouver and Ottawa regarding issues such as the degree to which these taxpayers were likely to fit within the framework of the B.C. project. [37]-            Under the heading “Additional Work Completed to November, 2009”: Review of a Position Paper and Proposal Letter issued in connection with a similar type of audit recently completed by the London TSO. [38]-           Under the heading “Next Steps – December, 2009”: Review Position Paper issued in connection with the Vancouver project (once this becomes available). ...

Subsection 152(4.01) provides that where a waiver is filed, the Minister may reassess the taxpayer’s income tax only to the extent that the reassessment can reasonably be regarded as relating to a matter specified in the waiver. [55]   Subparagraphs 152(4)(a)(ii) and 152(4.01)(a)(ii) read as follows: 152(4) The Minister may at any time make an assessment, reassessment or additional assessment of tax for a taxation year, interest or penalties, if any, payable under this Part by a taxpayer or notify in writing any person by whom a return of income for a taxation year has been filed that no tax is payable for the year, except that an assessment, reassessment or additional assessment may be made after the taxpayer’s normal reassessment period in respect of the year only if a. the taxpayer or person filing the return ii. has filed with the Minister a waiver in prescribed form within the normal reassessment period for the taxpayer in respect of the year; 152(4.01) Notwithstanding subsections (4) and (5), an assessment, reassessment or additional assessment to which paragraph (4)(a), (b), (b.1), (b.3), (b.4) or (c) applies in respect of a taxpayer for a taxation year may be made after the taxpayer’s normal reassessment period in respect of the year to the extent that, but only to the extent that, it can reasonably be regarded as relating to, a. where paragraph 152(4)(a) applies to the assessment, reassessment or additional assessment, ii. a matter specified in a waiver filed with the Minister in respect of the year; … [56]   Thus the Minister can assess/reassess outside the normal reassessment period to the extent the reassessment falls within the scope of a waiver where the reassessment reasonably relates to a matter specified in the waiver. [36] [57]   T he respondent has the initial onus of proving that the terms of the Waiver bear a reasonable connection to the adjustment made in the Reassessment. [37] [58]   632 suggests that the Minister is attempting to circumvent subparagraph 152(4)(a)(ii) and to read subsection 152(4.01) out of the Act. ... However, an approach that circumscribes the manner in which evidence is introduced is not conducive with a fair and just determination on the merits. [48] [73]   There has been no opportunity for the respondent to conduct discovery of Larry Thompson, the signatory of the Waiver on 632’s behalf. [49] Clearly, his understanding of the Waiver when he signed it and the underlying transactions would be directly relevant to the Question to assist in the determination of the terms of the Waiver and if those bear a reasonable connection to the adjustment in the Reassessment. [74]   Given the foregoing and the summary nature of the Motion, it would be unfair, in my view, if 632 was permitted to control the manner in which the respondent may elicit and adduce evidence by utilizing Rule 58. This is especially so since she is tasked with proving that the terms of the Waiver bear a reasonable connection to the adjustment in the Reassessment. [75]   Consequently, a full hearing with its procedural protections, viva voce evidence and all the circumstances is necessary to provide information to the Court that it would need to make its findings and weigh the evidence to make its decision. ...

Further, the only connection to the Appellants is the raw point-of-sale data obtained during the audit, in turn analyzed by the auditor using the Algorithm. [3] Otherwise, the Minister cannot substantiate its purported unreported cash amounts by reference to any bank statements or other financial information of any of the Appellants; [4] iii) The Algorithm, solely developed and used by the auditors, renders the Minister the only party in full possession of any and all information relating to the ECAS Algorithm, the factual basis for the assessments. [5] Consequently, the Appellants are not in a position to disprove any assumptions of fact or factual conclusions in the replies related to the ECAS Algorithm. ... Across the replies of the three companies are the reply paragraphs, sorted by type of assumption, in turn, cross-referenced to the common grounds for striking the paragraph (“Argument Sets”) and the collated evidentiary basis (“Evidence Sets”) for doing so. [6] Generally, the groupings of arguments are sorted and described as follows within two Argument Sets: Argument Set I with reference to ECAS Algorithm and information sources The assumption in the reply refers to the Profitek software system generally and not to the specific system used by the Appellants; [8] The ECAS Algorithm is the source of information for the assumption; [9] Neither the Appellants nor their employees are the source of the information underlying the assumption. [10] Arguments Set II with reference to assumptive conclusions emanating from the ECAS Algorithm rather than Appellants’ records or physical audit [11] The assumption is a factual conclusion made by the ECAS Auditor and CRA Auditor based solely on the ECAS Algorithm by applying the Algorithm to the raw POS Data; [12] The only connection between the assumption and the Appellants and in raising the Prior Reassessments is the Raw POS Data; [13] The assumption is not based on a review by the CRA Auditor of Financial Records. [14] iii) Evidence Sets in support of striking assumptions [7] The Appellants argue these Argument Sets are reliably proven by the answers given below and specifically referenced against each paragraph in each company’s reply in Appendix A. In affidavit form, the Appellants assert that the following Evidence Sets given by the Respondent’s representative during discoveries prove the reply assumptions are mere camouflage for the data derived from the ECAS Algorithm: Evidence Set 1: Admitted by the Respondent at Exhibit B – Request Response 93, 98, Exhibit C – Transcript pp. 238-249. [15] Evidence Set 2: Factual conclusions made by the ECAS Auditor and the CRA Auditor: Exhibit B – Request Response 95(a), 95(b), 100(a), 100(b), 102(a), 102(b). [16] Evidence Set 3: Factual conclusions made by ECAS based only on applying the ECAS Theory to the Appellants’ Raw POS Data: Exhibit B – Request Response 95(c), 100(c), Exhibit C – Transcript pp 245, 246, 253, 254, 258-268, 275-283, 285, 286. [17] Evidence Set 4: The only connection to the Appellant in making the factual assumption referenced in the specific paragraph and in raising the Prior Reassessments is the Appellants’ Raw POS Data: Exhibit B – Request Response 95(d), 100(d). [18] Evidence Set 5: Assumptions were not based on any review by the CRA Auditor of the Appellants’ Financial Records: Exhibit B – Request Response 95(e), 100(e), 102(e). [19] [8] As noted, across the companies’ appeals, the critical assumptions charted against the Argument Sets and Evidence Sets are best described in the chart attached as Appendix A to these Reasons for Order. ...

In the present Motion, there is nothing to suggest that any of the members of RCC have such a connection to the subject matter of TD’s Appeal. [29] In BCIC, Justice Angers made the following comments about the application of the tests in subparagraphs 28(1)(a) and (b) of the Rules to a proposed intervention in a tax appeal: 8. ... Accordingly, Justice Angers allowed Cango to intervene. [43] [41] The connection between Cango’s circumstances and Mr. Armstrong’s motion was substantially closer and more direct than the connection between RCC’s circumstances (including those of its members) and TD’s Appeal. ...

Players had to subscribe to gain access to this website. [56] Once again in connection with the above-mentioned request for information, the appellant submitted, as an appendix to his response, a list of the live tournaments that he participated in during the period. ... Loss (2) Subject to section 31, a taxpayer’s loss for a taxation year from a business or property is the amount of the taxpayer’s loss, if any, for the taxation year from that source computed by applying the provisions of this Act respecting computation of income from that source with such modifications as the circumstances require.... 40(2)(f) a taxpayer’s gain or loss from the disposition of (i) a chance to win a prize or bet, or (ii) a right to receive an amount as a prize or as winnings on a bet, in connection with a lottery scheme or a pool system of betting referred to in section 205 of the Criminal Code is nil;... 248(1) business includes a profession, calling, trade, manufacture or undertaking of any kind whatever and, except for the purposes of paragraph 18(2)(c), section 54.2, subsection 95(1) and paragraph 110.6(14)(f), an adventure or concern in the nature of trade but does not include an office or employment; (commerce) I. ... The right to receive an amount as winnings on a bet is not earned in connection with a lottery scheme or a pool system of betting referred to in section 205 of the Criminal Code. ...

Counsel said, in oral submissions, that if the tax shelter was the Appellant's license then it would be property:... in respect of which it can reasonably be considered, having regard to statements or representations made or proposed to be made in connection with the property... that the representations would have to be in connection with that license, not someone else's license. ... My view is that, in interpreting the definition, I must have: regard to statements or representations made or proposed to be made in connection with the "property" referred to in the definition. [13] That is required to assist me to conclude whether it can reasonably be considered that a person has acquired a "tax shelter". ... In the case at bar, statements and representations by Trafalgar to potential investors did not identify any specific licenses or properties, thus it makes no sense to argue that it is only statements and representations regarding the Appellant that are at issue in this appeal.... it is submitted that statements or representations as contemplated in 237.1(1) were made to various people in connection with sales or proposed sales of TIP Licenses... ...

There is no logical connection between these provisions. It is also evident that paragraph 6204(2)(c) of the Regulations may not be used to disregard the conditions in subparagraphs 6204(1)(a)(iii) and 6204(1)(a)(v). ... No logical connection exists between paragraph 6204(2)(c) and subparagraphs 6204(1)(a)(iii) and 6204(1)(a)(v). [88]         In the light of the foregoing, the paragraphs of subsection 6204(2) accordingly apply to the paragraphs of subsection 6204(1) through the existence of a logical connection. [89]         It is now to be determined whether paragraph 6204(2)(c) applies to paragraph 6204(1)(b), that is, whether it disregards the two-year reasonable expectation. [90]         The respondent has not disputed the appellants’ fulfilment of the conditions set out in paragraph 6204(2)(c), specifically in subparagraphs 6204(2)(c)(i), (ii) and (iii), of the Regulations. ... This shows that paragraph 6204(2)(c), used to eliminate from consideration certain rights or obligations, is not relevant to paragraph 6204(1)(b). [98]         Moreover, contrary to situations in which there is a logical connection between the application of subsection 6204(2) of the Regulations and certain subparagraphs of paragraph 6204(1)(a), it is difficult to find a logical connection between the factual issue in paragraph 6204(1)(b), the two-year reasonable expectation, and paragraph 6204(2)(c), the purpose of which is to disregard the right or obligation to redeem, acquire or cancel the share or to cause the share to be redeemed, acquired or cancelled. [99]         As indicated by Mr.  ...

MNR, 55 DTC 1176 (SCC) (p. 1178) where it was explained that this is so because “an assessment which assesses no tax is not an assessment” and an objection that does not relate to an amount claimed as taxes is “lacking the object giving rise to the right of appeal” (para 17). [92] In this instance, it is not disputed that the Appellants have not filed an appeal in connection with the Part I Reassessments. ... GAAR in Connection with the RRSP Trust [240] The first issue is whether there was a tax benefit? ... The Reasonable Tax Consequences [258] The Court thus concludes that the steps undertaken by the Appellants in connection with RRSP Trust and in connection with the CDA, as described above, 1) achieved an outcome the statutory provisions were intended to prevent, 2) defeated the underlying rational of the provisions and 3) circumvented the provisions in a manner that frustrated or defeated its object, spirit and purpose: Copthorne Holdings Ltd. v. ...

More specifically, these fees were incurred in connection with a motion to dismiss appeal, a provisional execution order, various appeals to the Court of Appeal and a challenge of the bankruptcy (see paras. 96-104 of this agreement for more details); With respect to the 2008 taxation year, the legal fees claimed for the purposes of this dispute are in the amount of $15,312.27, which can be broken down as follows: $2,333.41 [6] for the appeal of the GST/QST assessment made in respect of Canadevim Ltée; $12,464.01 [7] for the challenge of the bankruptcy of Canadevim Ltée (see paras. 107-110 of this agreement for more details); $514.85 [8] for the objection to the Notice of Assessment of tax made in respect of Mr.  ... Appellant’s position   [4]              In the Notices of Appeal, the appellant essentially claimed that the fees he had incurred were allowable expenses because they were incurred in connection with normal contracts incidental and necessary to the earning of income from a business. ...