Search - considered

Dès lors, il avise le contribuable de sa décision par écrit. 169. (1) Where a taxpayer has served notice of objection to an assessment under section 165, the taxpayer may appeal to the Tax Court of Canada to have the assessment vacated or varied after either 169. (1) Lorsqu'un contribuable a signifié un avis d'opposition à une cotisation, prévu à l'article 165, il peut interjeter appel auprès de la Cour canadienne de l'impôt pour faire annuler ou modifier la cotisation: (a) the Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessed, or a) après que le ministre a ratifié la cotisation ou procédé à une nouvelle cotisation; (b) 90 days have elapsed after service of the notice of objection and the Minister has not notified the taxpayer that the Minister has vacated or confirmed the assessment or reassessed, b) après l'expiration des 90 jours qui suivent la signification de l'avis d'opposition sans que le ministre ait notifié au contribuable le fait qu'il a annulé ou ratifié le cotisation ou procédé à une nouvelle cotisation; but no appeal under this section may be instituted after the expiration of 90 days from the day notice has been mailed to the taxpayer under section 165 that the Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessed. toutefois, nul appel prévu au présent article ne peut être interjeté après l'expiration des 90 jours qui suivent la date où avis a été expédié par la poste au contribuable, en vertu de l'article 165, portant que le ministre a ratifié la cotisation ou procédé à une nouvelle cotisation. [17]       These two provisions were considered by the Federal Court of Appeal in its decision of December 21, 2000 in James v. ... The taxpayer may appeal to the Tax Court under paragraph 169(1)(b), or commence proceedings in the Federal Court to compel the Minister to consider the objection and deal with it.... [20]       Moreover, allowing assessments to be vacated on the ground that the Minister failed to confirm an assessment with due dispatch would frustrate Parliament's intent by rendering meaningless paragraph 169(1)(b) of the Act, which expressly gives taxpayers a remedy when the Minister fails to confirm an assessment within a period considered appropriate by the taxpayer. ... Webster discovered that the Minister's official who had considered his objections might have had access to information that he had been denied. [30]       At paragraph 10 of its reasons, the Court summarized Mr. ...

The applications judge in that case considered the right to redact the names of persons from information to be provided pursuant to a valid requirement. ... Firstly, I note that a right of redaction, if it exists, should only be considered on the basis of a factual background. ... In the absence of such evidence, disclosure of the names of the Charities is, in my view, a valid part of the Requirement without prior judicial authorization. [36]       Neither party to this application was able to refer me to any case directly on point, although both, helpfully, cited a number of cases that considered the provisions in question. ...

That alternative ground was not argued by the plaintiffs at trial and in view of that the plaintiffs urged that the alternative ground argued by the defendant could not be considered for it introduced an entirely different basis for assessing tax liability than was originally advanced by the Minister in the assessments here appealed. ... Those circumstances were peculiar to that case and the decision is not helpful in this case. [28]      In that case there was one transaction the amount of which was assessable in one taxation year, whether it was considered a transfer of property or a loan. ... Antonello and Montemurro, that no consent had been given to a demand for repayment by Bronson, and that they were not able, in view of economic conditions in the mid-1980's, to repay the moneys originally treated as loans, it may be inferred that by May 30, 1989, the moneys advanced by Bronson Homes to the plaintiff corporations were considered by the principals concerned to be transfers of property, for which there is no argument that any consideration was given. ...

As a result, certain shares of public companies acquired in exchange for private company shares should not have been considered "taxable Canadian property" when the ownership thereof moved from Canada to the United States. ... CES' solicitors but did state in response to questions from the opposition that he accepted the majority report of the standing committee which endorsed the Minister's handling of the Rulings and rejected the Auditor's critique thereof. [8]      The facts alleged by the plaintiff are that in 1984, the Minister was asked by a party whose identity is not known to the plaintiff, for a ruling declaring that public company shares held by a trust resident in Canada would be considered "taxable Canadian property" under the Act and that a change in residence of the trust would not cause a deemed realization. ... After the first prayer for relief, the plaintiff inserts in the Statement of Claim a further six paragraphs of facts; and then      (f)      claims a declaration that in receiving and responding to the 1991 Ruling request, the Minister was acting in a fiduciary capacity, or was acting in a capacity akin to a fiduciary, toward the class of plaintiffs described herein; and      (g)      a declaration that the Minister breached the said fiduciary duty or fiduciary-like duty in the following respects:          (i)      by agreeing to issue an Advance Tax Ruling in circumstances where the share exchange had already taken place, and therefore the transaction which was to be the subject of the Ruling was substantially completed, all of which was contrary to established Revenue Canada policy and procedure, which allows for Rulings respecting proposed transactions only; and          (ii)      by agreeing to issue a Ruling when Revenue Canada believed that the Act did not allow for such a favourable Ruling, or was ambiguous in respect of the proposed transaction; and          (iii)      by agreeing to issue a Ruling when the applicant therefor was apparently in possession of private information, to wit the 1985 Ruling whereas the only public position ever put out by the Minister was contrary, namely, the 1985 opinion; and          (iv)      by favouring Protective Trust and Family Trust with a Ruling not equally available to others;          (v)      by succumbing to pressure by persons outside Revenue Canada and reversing the Department's considered position against a favourable Ruling;          (vi)      by issuing a Ruling with a private side deal, comprised of the undertaking and waiver thereby allowing a transaction which avoided the intent of the Act; and          (vii)      by neglecting or refusing to refer the matter to the Anti-Avoidance Committee under the General Anti-Avoidance Rules pursuant to section 245 of the Act, for detailed consideration and analysis in that forum, prior to rendering a decision in response to the Ruling request; and          (viii)      By processing and approving the Ruling with extraordinary and undue haste, in order to satisfy the schedule of the applicant for the Ruling,              and thereby precluding completion of a thorough internal review of all relevant aspects of the matter; and          (ix)      By issuing an erroneous Ruling in law; and          (x)      By failing to publish the Ruling forthwith, and by failing to provide all material details of the Ruling when finally publishing same in or about March 1996; and          (xi)      By failing to take all reasonable steps to protect the tax base and the practical interests of the class of Plaintiffs; and          (xii)      Such further and other particulars of breach as may become known to the Plaintiff after Discovery.      ...

    [13]            The Minister’s delegate stated that the CRA had considered the applicant’s submission in light of the guidelines set out in Information Circular 07-1 and the applicable legislation. ... To the contrary, that letter is referenced in the Taxpayer Relief Report as providing the factual history of the CRA’s interactions with the applicant in the course of obtaining the adjournment. [38]            With regard to the applicant’s concerns with precedent indicated in the Taxpayer Relief Report, the Court finds that the report demonstrates that the Minister’s delegate considered the applicant’s individual circumstances and the unique facts of the applicant’s case in producing the report. ... In that way, the CRA allowed the applicant’s request to be considered. ...

Further, the applicant does not allege that he was not given time to prepare in view of the fact that one or several exclusion clauses were being considered. ... Auclair to submit evidence to the tribunal, including some evidence that it considered relevant to the outcome of the case that had been summarized in his claim by the refugee protection officer (RPO), assisted by the interpreter. ... However, he considered the issue of the addition between the lines and found that it was only a clerical error that did not cast doubt on the authenticity of the document ...

Issue 1 – Were the IT and GST Diaries Adequately Considered?   [31]            The Second Decision and the Second Fairness Report do not assess the meaning and impact of the entries in the two diaries.  ... It appears that she only considered the entries relating to the June 5, 2002 letter and the August 6, 2002 phone call ...   [44]            However, another interpretation is possible and it was not considered.  ...

This is a question of law, which calls for a more in-depth review. [25]            Having considered the four factors, I am of the view that the standard of review should be correctness. [26]            Issue 2             Did the CBSA err in its assessment of GST and interest on the importations of the in-transit gas?             ... I must now determine whether these sections should have been considered by the officer in making his decision. I would note, although not necessary for my findings, the officer on cross-examination stated he did not consider section 23 of the Customs Act and he was not permitted to answer whether he considered section 144.01 of the Excise Tax Act in reaching his decision. [31]            The natural gas in question is transportable by means of a pipeline. ...

The evidence must be considered in relation to the test established by paragraph 225.2(2) itself and by relevant cases …. ...   [14]            An assessment of the jurisprudence requires the Court to stay close to the statutory scheme related to jeopardy orders, which in the period after initial enactment in 1985 underwent two or three amendments, shortly thereafter, changing the standard of proof from "it may reasonably be considered that the collection of the amount assessed…would be jeopardized" to "reasonable grounds for believing" such would be the case ... Fowles' affidavit considered by Justice Snider ex parte did not provide her with full and fair disclosure of the true value of her assets, a true picture of the refinancing efforts on the Bates Street and Hogarth Street residences and a full picture of the family's financial affairs, all of which should be viewed cumulatively. ...

In a letter dated May 19, 2010, the CBSA Recourse Directorate informed the Plaintiff that his request was accepted and his complaint was being considered. [9]                By letter dated October 20, 2011, the Minister found that the actions of the Plaintiff constituted a contravention of the Act under section 131 and that $7,051.12 of the amount paid by the Plaintiff for the return of his goods was to remain held as forfeit pursuant to section 133. The Minister found that the $4,000 initially declared by the Plaintiff was not considered in assessing the forfeit amount of $8,655.44 against the Plaintiff. ... In a letter dated June 8, 2010, the CBSA Recourse Directorate informed the Plaintiff that his request was accepted and his complaint was being considered. [17]            By letter dated October 19, 2011, the Minister found that the actions of the Plaintiff constituted a contravention of the Act under section 131 and that the $5128.48 was to be held as forfeit pursuant to section 133. ...