Search - consideration

He then stated (at para. 9): [T]he purpose of the present Application is not to challenge the validity of the Assessment but to remove the Decision that is an obstacle placed in Conoco's path towards a proper consideration by the Minister of its Objection. ...

In addition, the fact that the requests may involve substantial documentation which the taxpayer may view as not proportional to the matter is not a relevant consideration (para 42) … In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the CRA audit has been launched for any purpose other than to ensure compliance with the ETA, or that the request for information was so wide, extraordinary, or unusual as to give rise to questions about its legitimacy in the context of the audit (assuming that such a claim could be brought, in the face of the wide authority granted to the Minister to set the timing, scope, and nature of the audit …. ...

Pallota J also rejected the Crown’s position that Zeifmans’ position in this application represented an impermissible collateral attack on the prior administrative order (the requirement) given that inter alia the imposition of separate conditions under s. 231.7(1)(a) notwithstanding that a recipient of a requirement could apply for judicial review of the requirement “indicate[d] Parliament did not intend for judicial review to be the sole forum for considering whether the Minister properly exercised her authority in issuing the Requirement” (para. 66), the two proceedings had a different character (of a reasonableness review, contrasted to a substantive review of whether the s. 231.7 considerations were satisfied – see paras. 74, 81-82), and in the earlier proceeding, the Minister had failed to disclose that the Unnamed Persons in fact were being targeted. ...

Following the CRA's denial of this request on June 9, 2011, the taxpayer applied for an order of mandamus to compel CRA to accept its "continuing" application for competent authority consideration under Art. ...

The reasons for judgment are unclear, but CRA apparently reassessed on the basis that the T2059 election form effectively allocated non-equity consideration ("boot") in excessive amounts to the non-goodwill assets, so that gain was required to be recognized under the excess boot rule in s. 85(1)(b). ...

Before setting aside the Committee’s decision and remitting it for consideration by a different decision maker, Norris J stated (at paras. 69, 72-73): It was unreasonable for the Assistant Commissioner to reject the remission request simply on the basis that the information examined during the remission review “did not reveal that the CRA made any error at the audit stage or in reassessing the 2005 and 2006 tax years” when this was the very point in issue. … [T]he Assistant Commissioner … [also] simply stated the principle that errors or omissions by tax professionals “are not considered extenuating circumstances for the purpose of remission” and then treated it as a complete answer to the applicant’s submission. … Given the importance to the applicant’s request of the question of whether any errors or omissions by the tax professionals who assisted the applicant could constitute an extenuating circumstance or, more broadly, made it unreasonable or unjust to recover the 2005/2006 debt, it was essential that the Assistant Commissioner explain why he concluded that they did not. … [I]t is insufficient to simply state the rule without also explaining why an exception should not be made in this case. ...

(CRA may have treated the non-equity consideration (“boot”) allocated to the non-goodwill assets as being in excess of their cost amounts, although the description of Diner J is unclear.) ...

Before rejecting KIK’s application for judicial review of this decision, Norris J noted (at para. 76): Had I limited my consideration of the officer’s [initial letter] I would have found that the decision is unreasonable. ...