Search - considered

Iris considered that the requirement in ETA s. 229(1) that net refund claims be paid “with all due dispatch” meant that it should be paid right away rather than awaiting the conclusion of the audit, and appealed the dismissal of its motion in the Federal Court, for an interim mandatory injunction to compel the payment of $62.3 million in GST/HST refunds, to the Court of Appeal. ...

He considered, as did the Tax Court below, that the Court could exercise its discretion to go beyond the question posed and review the combined effect of ss. 207.05 and 207.06. ...

In rejecting the Crown’s submission that the repair expenditures were not deductible because the unit was not rented out during that year, Masse DJ noted (at para. 23) that “a property does not need to be generating income at every stage of operation in order to be considered a source of income.” ...

D’Auray J below had considered this approach to be unfair and anomalous, since if the company had instead lain in the grass and been assessed by CRA for the unreported GST, CRA would have been required under s. 296(2.1) to allow the (more than) offsetting unclaimed rebate amounts, so that no interest or late-filing penalties could have been assessed. ...

After first concluding that there was no tax benefit (such dividend alternative was not commercially realistic), he also found that there was no avoidance transaction, stating (at para. 308) that the taxpayers “undertook the Transactions to effect the sale of their shares in the subsidiaries to WTC on a tax efficient basis” and that there was “no evidence to suggest that in 2006 the Appellants considered the application of section 160 and took steps to avoid the application of that provision.” ...

CRA considered that the corporation’s invoices did not comply with the last sentence quoted above. ...

In the circumstances of this case, it considered it inefficient and procedurally unfair to do so. ...

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). ...

These transactions depended in part on the appellants being considered to have transferred the acquired units of an income fund (“FMO”) at a cost equaling the units’ FMV followed immediately by a distribution to them of capital gains that had been realized by TOM – with that distribution not reducing the ACB of their units by virtue of s. 53(2)(h)(i.1)(A) and (B)((I). ...

Such representations will be considered sufficiently precise for purposes of the doctrine of legitimate expectations if, had they been made in the context of a private law contract, they would be sufficiently certain to be capable of enforcement: Mavi at para 69. ...