Search - considered

Nagel that her objection was invalid because “[w]hen a client has filed an objection for issues that are not considered part of the assessment of tax, penalty or interest, it cannot be accepted as a Notice of Objection”. ... However, during the hearing, she stated that as she had indicated in her notice of objection that she wished to make a “fuller response after new and additional information has been considered”, she is now also applying to this Court for an order to extend the time to object to a reassessment. [11]          Before addressing the application, I have to state my disagreement with the Respondent’s approach in her submission relating to the First Reassessment. ... Nagel noted with respect to the reassessments pertain to: (i) her province of residence, as she would like to be considered a resident of Saskatchewan, (ii) the federal unused tuition, textbook and education tax credits (subsection 118.61(2) of the Act) as she is of the view that she is not entitled to the credit since she never reimbursed the student loans, and (iii) the GST determination. ...

A total of $39,902.87 was apparently transferred from the LIRA to the LIF, which is considered to be like a RRIF (Registered Retirement Income Fund) within the meaning of the Income Tax Act (ITA). [5] [13]   On June 14, 2012, $19,951.43 was again transferred from the LIF into an RRSP Account, which allowed the appellant to claim a significant deduction that greatly reduced the tax impact of these transactions on his statement of income for the 2012 taxation year. ... (b) As mentioned above, the Minister considered the lump sum to be pension income for the purposes of the aforementioned calculation. ... Canada (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development), 2008 TCC 25, written by my colleague the Honourable Justice Hershfield, clearly establishes that funds from an RRIF are considered to be pension income and that this decision should be followed by our Court. [46]   I recognize that in certain cases, funds from an RRIF could be considered to be pension income. ...

The administrative position was as follows: Although royalty income is generally from a source that is property, where it can be established that the royalty income is related to an active business carried on by the recipient corporation in the year, or the recipient corporation is, in the year, in the business of originating property from which the royalties are received, such income will be considered to be income from an active business. Therefore, if a company is in the business of composing music, the income it earns with respect to its copyrighted music would generally be considered active business income. ... Accordingly, the income is considered to be active business income by operation of the exceptions contained in subsection 129(4), which is incorporated in the definitions relating to small business rules. ...

., 2007 FCA 222 in which the Federal Court of Appeal outlined a three-part test that must be passed before the respondent will be allowed to amend its pleadings to add additional arguments, as follows: (a)   the respondent cannot include transactions which did not form the basis of the taxpayer’s reassessment; (b)   the right of the respondent to present an alternative argument in support of an assessment is limited by paragraph 152(9)(a) and (b), which speaks to the prejudice to the taxpayer; and (c)   the respondent cannot use subsection 152(9) to reassess outside the limitations described in subsection 152(4) or to collect tax exceeding the amount of the assessment under appeal. [25]   In determining whether a taxpayer would be prejudiced by an amendment, the following factors should be considered according to the Tax Court of Canada’s decision in Continental Bank of Canada v. ... The Court found that the two-year delay in that case did not cause prejudice, given the stage of the litigation and further found that permitting the amendments would permit all relevant provisions to be considered at trial. [38]   On appeal of the Loewen decision, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the right of the Crown to rely upon an alternative argument is now governed by subsection 152(9) of the Act. ... The proposed amendments will undoubtedly assist the Court in ensuring that all applicable provisions of the Act are considered by the Court and will facilitate the Court’s consideration of the true substance of the litigation, based on its merits. ...

Also, while the application of the GAAR to the Treaty raised complex issues, these issues had been considered already by the Courts. ... The Queen 2016 TCC 258, that discretion must be exercised on a principled basis, giving proper weight to the factors listed in section 147 of the Rules and such other factors as must be considered in order to produce a just result. [14]   The parties have each addressed the factors listed in 147(3) of the Rules in their submissions. ... (in Jolly Farmer   Products Inc. v The Queen, 2008 TCC 409) considered to be an unnecessary trial, in Jolly Farmer Products Inc. v. ...

I will deal with these items further in the next section. [18]   Gestions Bussey also argues that Andréanne Leblanc’s notes, which were considered by the Delegate for her Decision, establish that the Minister fettered his discretion because they indicate the following, among other things: even though Gestions Bussey may hire representatives, it [translation] “remains responsible if the advice received turns out to be erroneous”. ... The Delegate further considered Gestions Bussey’s argument that its intentions were honest and that this was the first time it found itself in such a situation. [31]   Regarding the six years in which Gestions Bussey’s case was held in abeyance, it is clear that the Delegate considered it. ... Moreover, the impugned decision provides a timeline of the events and refers to the challenges instituted by Gestions Bussey. [32]   Despite Gestions Bussey’s arguments, I believe that the Delegate reasonably considered the lack of clarity in the law and the amount of time the case was held in abeyance. ...

He further argues that any delays with respect to processing the Applicant’s objection to the 2003 taxation year assessment between June 24, 2011 and December 6, 2012 were a result of errors made by the Applicant’s counsel, not the CRA. [28]   Finally, the Respondent submits that the Minister’s discretion was properly exercised because the Minister considered the relevant factors and the Applicant’s circumstances. ... The materials that she considered include reassessments, filing history and correspondence. [44]   The principal complaints raised by the Applicant in the within application are unreasonable findings of fact by Ms. ... MacGregor gave reasons for her recommendation that no further relief be granted as follows: I recommend no further relief as per the following: Taxpayers are generally considered to be responsible for errors made by third parties acting on their behalf for income tax matters. ...

She considered the factors established by the relevant policy guidelines, as contained in section 33 of Information Circular IC07-1 entitled the Taxpayer Relief Provisions [Guidelines].   ... Baker considered the scope and content of procedural fairness in deciding Ms. ... This, in turn, should have indicated that the Accountant and Applicant were not in a professional relationship, even if authorization to communicate with the CRA remained in place. [31]   The Respondent counters that this is, at best, a variation of the procedural fairness argument discussed above: the Minister’s Delegate considered all the relevant evidence, applied it to the established Guidelines, and exercised its discretion in a defensible manner.   ...

Generally, all means available within the legislation should be exhausted before remission relief is considered, i.e. filing a notice of objection, and/or a court appeal, or requesting any recourse under a tax convention (at p 5). [23]   Each remission request is to be considered on its own merits.   ... The Guidelines indicate at page 12 that remission on this basis will be considered if the taxpayer “could not reasonably have been expected to initiate timely actions to avoid or minimize tax (or collect and remit the tax…)” and “if CRA officials made an error in assessing tax, the error must have been recognizable as such at the time of the assessment (on the assumption that all relevant facts were known), and not in light of subsequent events, such as a court decision that reverses the standard interpretation upon which the assessment is based”. [25]   Here, the crux of the Applicant’s argument with respect to certain communications between Ms. ... Here, that did not occur. [38]   Rather, the Minister’s Delegate considered whether the Applicant had demonstrated that it could not have reasonably been expected to take action within the required time limits to resolve the problem through the statutory path.   ...

The Respondent states that Ms Martel considered the Applicant’s request on its own merits and the record before her and that her partial grant of the relief requested was well within the range of acceptable outcomes. ... This argument was not considered by Ms Martel. However, I find she committed no error in this regard. [32]   As stated above, the Third Request Letter requested interest relief in respect of identified periods and for specific delays on the part of the CRA. ... It is apparent that she was fully aware of the Applicant’s history with the CRA in respect of the Taxation Years and considered the circumstances relevant to the Applicant’s request fairly. ...