Search - considered

The LP claimed CCA in its 2007 taxation year on the basis that s. 13(31)(a) deemed it to have acquired the property on the first day of that taxation year: it considered that it was effectively deemed by s. 13(31)(a) to have a notional taxation year beginning on February 1, 2004 and ending on January 31, 2005, so that on the beginning of its 2007 taxation year it satisfied the test in s. 13(27)(b) that such time followed the end of a taxation year of more than 357 days which, in turn, followed the taxation year in which the taxpayer had acquired the property. ...

CRA considered that the above agreement had the effect of constituting the Rémillard Brothers as de facto trustees of the trust, contrary to the trust deed and Art. 1275, so that the determinations to make the distributions pursuant to such unlawful agreement were a nullity, with the result that the distribution amounts were not “payable” as required by s. 104(6). ...

Southcott J stated (at para. 19) that he found “compelling the Applicants’ position... that CRA appears to have considered the relevant statutory authority to have been sufficient to authorize a reassessment of Strike’s income tax return for the 2017 taxation year (a year in which the Applicants submit the reassessment was favourable to CRA).“ ...

After also noting that the L.C. was issued pursuant to the agreement for the supply of aluminum to Sural and for invoicing Sural therefor, he concluded that the US$16 million should be considered as a partial payment of the unpaid Sural invoices, so that the ARQ position was confirmed. ...

In finding that Harvard Properties and NH Properties, were not dealing with each other at arm’s length, Boyle J stated (at paras. 155, 161): Given the agreement for Abacus to pay a premium to the co-owners to purchase the co-owners’ interests … the steps and the amounts in the series of transactions cannot be considered to reflect ordinary commercial dealings. … Harvard Properties, Abacus and NH Properties clearly acted together to dictate [the] Newcos’ actions from their inception and throughout the closing of this series of transactions. ...

Furthermore, Boyle J considered that the reasonable way in the circumstances to deny the tax benefit was to treat s. 160 as applying to the extent of the shortfall in consideration given on the transfer (para. 208). ...

In finding that that was the situation here, he indicated that: “the trustee's distributions had no impact on the rights of a beneficiary of the Trust who had or had not received a distribution” (para. 65); and although the taxpayer “had a right under the Trust to be considered by the trustee for any distribution on the same basis as the other beneficiaries … there is no reason to believe that anyone would have paid even a very small amount for [this right]” (para. 67); In also rejecting the taxpayer’s submission that the deeming by s. 107(2) of proceeds for the distributed property equal to its cost amount constituted the receipt of consideration for s. 160(1)(e) purposes, Gagnon J stated (at para. 79) that “[w]hen there is a transfer of value between two patrimonies, there is a transfer within the meaning of subsection 160(1)” and it was “hardly conceivable that the tax treatment of a transaction could interact with the notion of transfer contemplated by Parliament for the purposes of subsection 160(1)” (para. 80). ...

Furthermore, in finding that there was no carelessness or neglect in their position that they carried on a business, he stated (at para. 90): [T]he Appellants thoughtfully and carefully considered the nature of the Dog Activities, and, in consultation with their accountants, concluded that those activities were a business. ...

In denying the applications, the CRA delegate considered that a high degree of care and diligence was to be expected given the sophistication of the Bank and EY, and that this had not been demonstrated in the circumstances. ...

The Queen, 2021 TCC 47-- summary under Paragraph 142(2)(a) Summary Under Tax Topics- Excise Tax Act- Section 142- Subsection 142(2)- Paragraph 142(2)(a) trucking company was considered to make an immediate on-supply of fuel to truckers in the country where it acquired fuel at service stations The taxpayer, which used its trucks, and independent contractors as drivers (a.k.a., contract truckers), to transport freight in Canada and the U.S, paid the "trip fee" specified in its agreements with the drivers for each trip. ...