Search - consideration

Under the Excise Tax Act, the tax is payable on the closing date or the day on which ownership of the unit is legally transferred. [10] In the current appeal, the Respondent submits that “the particular time” when first use of the unit is to be considered is the day on which ownership of the Property was transferred to the Appellant: October 20, 2021. [11] The Respondent further reasons that the expectation of the Appellant on October 20, 2021, the date of title transfer, is the only time for consideration relevant in this appeal. ... In short, the narrow consideration of only the “actual first use after title transfer” renders the expressed concept of a taxpayer’s reasonable expectation of first to occupy meaningless in the case where a tenancy, otherwise reasonably anticipated to last more than one year, is terminated before one year and immediately followed by an uninterrupted long-term tenancy. ...

He asserts that [translation] “[t]he officer fails to take into consideration that the CRB is similar to the CERB at its core and that the CRB applied to an opening of the labour market” (Notice of Application at para 30). ... The decision should have been made by a committee rather than a single compliance officer, as [translation] “[a]ll angles are rarely taken into consideration if only one person is making the decisions.  ...

This included the entries from the CRA’s T1 Case Notepad, the SA Notepad (CRA Notepads), and the SA Database—which contain all the notes from the original CRA agent and the Reviewing Officer’s Second Review Report, all the documentation submitted by the Applicant for consideration via the CRA MyAccount web page, and records of telephone conversations with the Applicant. [33] This Court has found that, similar to the Global Case Management System notes developed by immigration officers in the course of their review, the Second Review Report forms a part of the reasons for the Reviewing Officer’s Decision (Aryan at para 22). [34] The Second Review Report notes that contact with the Applicant had not been established, but found that the eligibility criteria, namely the need to demonstrate a minimum of $5,000 in employment or self-employment income, was not met. ... The Court notes that “[n]o matter how much deference is accorded administrative tribunals in the exercise of their discretion to make procedural choices, the ultimate question remains whether the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond” (CPR at para 56; see also Larocque v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 613 [Larocque] at paras 25–26). [41] The central consideration to determine if the Reviewing Officer’s Decision was procedurally fair is if the Applicant was given a “full and fair opportunity to make submissions to the CRA, and the Officer took these into account in rendering [their] decision” (Flock at para 26). [42] As noted previously, the record indicates that all information submitted by the Applicant was considered by the Reviewing Officer. [43] The Reviewing Officer’s supporting affidavit and the CRA Notepad entries indicate that three telephone attempts were made to discuss the file with the Applicant to the phone number he provided in his application, and that a voice mail with a return phone number for the Reviewing Officer was provided to the Applicant. [44] In my opinion, the record supports that the Applicant was afforded procedural fairness. ...

Deference is owed to the CRA in this case, as the CRA may draw on its institutional expertise, experience and rely on considerations that a court would not have thought to employ, but which “enrich and elevate the interpretive exercise” (Mason at para 70). ... Finally, I would note that it was Rebel itself, and not the CRA, who selected the three-week period for review. [45] Rebel has not satisfied me that the CRA Decision is unreasonable on the grounds that the assessment of originality of news content was confined to a consideration of news reporting during a three-week period or that the news content for this period was not reasonably considered. ...

In addition, I find that the Officer’s decision lacks coherence and intelligibility because she relied on irrelevant considerations to find that the Applicant had not proven eligibility for the CRB. ... After the hearing, I provided the parties an opportunity to submit post-hearing submissions on this issue. [15] There are three issues for consideration: (i) whether the Officer breached procedural fairness; (ii) whether the Officer erred in finding that the Applicant did not earn the required income for the CRB; and (iii) the appropriate remedy. [16] With respect to breaches of procedural fairness, no standard of review is applied. ...

However a consideration of the legal status of the 2020 Assessment and the 2021 Reassessment in order. (1) Issue #1: Which assessment is on appeal before this Court [5] Both parties argued this case on the basis that this is an appeal from the 2020 Assessment. ... Discretionary decisions may be based on a variety of factors not strictly set out in the tax statute, such as policy considerations. [18] That kind of decision-making is not the same as the decision to assess tax which must follow the law of the tax statute. [19] [29] It may be argued that while some decisions are discretionary, their impact on an assessment entails that they must be considered when this Court decides if the assessment is correct. ...

It must involve a high degree of negligence tantamount to intentional acting, an indifference as to whether the law is complied with or not. [25] Although subjective considerations may be relevant, gross negligence is determined with reference to an objective test. It is a marked departure from the standards, practices and due diligence expected of a responsible taxpayer (see Wynter at para 21). [26] In Torres v The Queen, 2013 TCC 380 at para 65, Justice Miller set out the following principles for determining whether there was wilful blindness: a) Knowledge of a false statement can be imputed by wilful blindness. b) The concept of wilful blindness can be applied to gross negligence penalties pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the Act and it is appropriate to do so in the cases before me. c) In determining wilful blindness, consideration must be given to the education and experience of the taxpayer. d) To find wilful blindness there must be a need or a suspicion for an inquiry. e) Circumstances that would indicate a need for an inquiry prior to filing, or flashing red lights as I called it in the Bhatti decision, include the following:   i) the magnitude of the advantage or omission;   ii) the blatantness of the false statement and how readily detectable it is;   iii) the lack of acknowledgment by the tax preparer who prepared the return in the return itself;   iv) unusual requests made by the tax preparer;   v) the tax preparer being previously unknown to the taxpayer;   vi) incomprehensible explanations by the tax preparer;   vii) whether others engaged the tax preparer or warned against doing so, or the taxpayer himself or herself expresses concern about telling others. f) The final requirement for wilful blindness is that the taxpayer makes no inquiry of the tax preparer to understand the return, nor makes any inquiry of a third party, nor the CRA itself ...

[31] Implicitly, consideration of the factors in this fashion immediately jettisons certain arguments made by Ms. ... When the CCB and its many past-iterations were created, Parliament’s policy considerations were that very well-being and welfare of children. ...

A factor, among others, that was taken into consideration by them in settling on this amount was that the appellant was entitled to deduct from tax otherwise payable a prescribed amount as a small business deduction. ... In addition, estimated reimbursements from third parties and insurance companies were taken into consideration. ...