Search - consideration

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. ...

In this regard, it stated (at paras. 167, 181-183 and 198): Canada has adduced evidence that clearly shows that establishing minimum national standards of GHG [greenhouse gas] price stringency to reduce GHG emissions is of sufficient concern to Canada as a whole that it warrants consideration in accordance with the national concern doctrine. … [P]rovincial inability is established in this case. … First, the provinces, acting alone or together, are constitutionally incapable of establishing minimum national standards of GHG price stringency to reduce GHG emissions. … Second, a failure to include one province in the scheme would jeopardize its success in the rest of Canada. … Moreover, the matter’s impact on the provinces’ freedom to legislate and on areas of provincial life that would fall under provincial heads of power is qualified and limited. ...

After canvassing authorities on the concept of a reasonable deduction, including (at para. 29) the statement in Gabco that this was a question of whether “no reasonable business man would have contracted to pay such an amount having only the business consideration of the appellant in mind,” and (at para. 31) that in Petro-Canada that “[t]here may be circumstances in which a decision to pay more than fair market value for something is a reasonable decision,” and then stated (at paras. 53-54): [I]n this case interest at the 10% rate deducted by the appellant is literally in the middle of the range of reasonable rates established by Deloitte's accountants, that is, between 7.89%, the rate used by the respondent to assess it, and 12.39%, this range having been established by considering, among other things, rates for unsecured loans. ...

Although there was no evidence as to how the purchase price, and the proceeds of the judicial sale, should be allocated between the mortgage and the debt, he found in light of the circumstances including the insolvency of the debtor that it was reasonable to allocate 99.9% and 0.1% of the purchase consideration to the mortgage and the debt, respectively and that “to achieve symmetry” (para. 116) the proceeds should also be allocated in those proportions. ...

Sommerfeldt J found, in light of the insolvency of the developer, that it was reasonable to allocate 99.9% and 0.1% of the purchase consideration to the mortgage and the debt, respectively and that “to achieve symmetry” (para. 116) the proceeds should also be allocated in those proportions. ...

These transactions depended in part on the appellants being considered to have acquired units of an income fund ("FMO") from another income fund ("TOM") (which in turn had purportedly acquired the FMO units from an RRSP in consideration for issuing TOM units to it) at a cost equaling the units’ FMV, followed immediately by a distribution to them of capital gains that had been realized by FMO – with that distribution not reducing the ACB of their units by virtue of s. 53(2)(h)(i.1)(A) and (B)((I). ...

Agence du revenu du Québec, 2021 QCCQ 3891-- summary under Subsection 120.4(5) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 120.4- Subsection 120.4(5) kiddie tax applicable to a trust’s distribution of a capital gain, realized on a crystallization transaction, to a minor beneficiary In 2012, a discretionary family trust engaged in a capital gains crystallization transaction in which it disposed of shares, having a modest ACB, of a corporation wholly-owned by the trust and engaged in a health care business (“Médicus”) in consideration for shares of a new class of Médicus, having a value of around $1M. ...

Similar considerations indicated that s. 227(4.1) did not create a trust that accorded with common law concepts, and the Crown was not significantly assisted by the reference in s. 227(4.1) to the amount covered by the deemed trust being “property beneficially owned by Her Majesty.” ...

Deans Knight Income Corporation, 2021 FCA 160, aff'd 2023 SCC 16-- summary under Paragraph 111(5)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Income Tax Act- Section 111- Subsection 111(5)- Paragraph 111(5)(a) the object and spirit of s. 111(5) is abused on an arm’s length acquisition of “actual” (albeit, not de jure) control of a Lossco The non-capital losses of $90M, and other tax attributes of the taxpayer, were effectively sold to arm’s length investors pursuant to transactions under which: The existing shareholders of the taxpayer exchanged their shares for shares of a “Newco” (“New Forbes”) under a Plan of Arrangement A private company “facilitator” (Matco) entered into an “Investment Agreement” with the taxpayer and New Forbes pursuant to which Matco (principally in consideration for $3M in cash) acquired a debenture of the taxpayer that was convertible into shares representing 79% of its equity shares but only 35% of its voting shares. ...

JDI then almost immediately acquired the PCE from IOL for $120 million (claiming 100% of this amount as CCA for that year), and agreed to operate the PCE in consideration for “throughput fees” payable to it by IPPL pursuant to “Operating and Services Agreements” (“OSAs”) governed by New Brunswick law. ...