Search - considered

The Minister does not seek to have the affidavit struck under Rule 81 but rather to have the Court drawn an adverse inference from EEIGI’s failure to provide an affidavit sworn by the associate lawyer who is purported to have knowledge of the information sharing that is the subject of the Respondent’s Affidavit. [19]   At the hearing, I asked the Minister’s counsel to identify whether there were particular components of the evidence contained in the Respondent’s Affidavit, relevant to the disputed issue of the notice provision sought by EEIGI, that the Minister considered should be afforded little weight.   ... However, for the sake of good order, I confirm that I have considered and am satisfied that the Minister has met these requirements. [24]   As explained by the Federal Court of Appeal in Minister of National Revenue v Lee, 2016 FCA 53 at para 6 (in the context of the equivalent provision of the ITA), the Court must be satisfied that: the person against whom the order is sought was required under the applicable statutory provisions (in the ETA, s 288 or 289) to provide the access, assistance, information or documents sought by the Minister; although the person was required to provide the information or documents sought by the Minister, he or she did not do so; and the documents or information sought is not protected from disclosure by solicitor-client privilege as defined within the statute. [25]   Based upon the Minister’s affidavit evidence and written submissions, I am satisfied that these requirements are met. ... Moreover, in Tomchin v Canada, 2015 FC 402, which considered arguments under ss 7 and 13 of the Charter related to protection against self-incrimination, Justice Manson relied on Jarvis in concluding that such protection constrains only the use that may be made of compelled information in a subsequent proceeding against the person concerned, not the collection and sharing of that information (at para 27). [33]   The Minister also submits that EEIGI is raising hypothetical Charter arguments in the context of speculative concerns about dissemination and use of the Required Information. ...

In the alternative, the Minister argues that the Second Relief Motion is an abuse of process. [22] The Applicant submits that the doctrine of issue estoppel does not apply because the 10‑month estimate for the audit given by the Minister and considered by the FCA has now elapsed. ... The parties agreed that the motion would be considered at the hearing of the Second Relief Motion. [33] The parties proposed an exchange of affidavits in the Second Relief Motion on or before October 30, 2020. ... I find that an advance motion and ruling would not have allowed the application to move forward in a timely manner. [39] Leaving aside for the moment the Ainsworth material, I reviewed each of the paragraphs identified by the Minister and considered whether they should be struck from Mr. ...

He did not agree with the concept of a perceived windfall since in his view that concept ignored the effect of the tax on market prices, and he considered the tax paid in excess of that calculated on the determined value would merely be a recovery of foregone profits. ... Thus, it is urged that even if the annual letters from Excise to the plaintiff about the method to be followed in calculating the tax and the publications of Excise are considered as representations of the tax to be applied, the plaintiff has no claim to recover where tax paid is in accord with the statute. ... Even if it could be considered that the Crown here received a benefit, that was not at the expense or deprivation of the plaintiff. ...

Counsel was told that CRA would be withdrawing the certificate and writ for both Applicants “as the debt is now considered to be certified in error.” [28] On January 29, 2019, withdrawals of the certificates against the Applicants were filed with the Court. ... It is a robust form of review: Vavilov at para 13. [43] A decision is considered reasonable where it is justified in relation to the facts and law constraining the decision-maker and is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis. ... [116] A legitimate expectation arises under specific circumstances. [117] The Applicants say that CRA consistently applies and upholds a) the policy of restricting collection action against third party directors who file timely Notices of Objection to director liability assessments relating to a corporate GST debt; and b) the policies and procedures set out in the 2015 Manual. [118] Since the CRA voluntarily restricted collection action, I will only address the Applicants’ assertion that there was a legitimate expectation that CRA would follow their own policies and procedures as set out in the 2015 Manual. [119] There is no evidence that the policies are so consistently applied by CRA that a legitimate expectation would arise. [120] A legitimate expectation arises when a government official makes “clear, unambiguous and unqualified” representations within the scope of their authority to an individual about an administrative process that the government will follow: Canada (Attorney General) v Mavi, 2011 SCC 30 [Mavi] at para 68. [121] 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. [122] I agree with CRA that an internal policy that was rescinded at the time that the certificates were filed is not a representation that is sufficiently precise to constitute a binding contractual obligation. ...

I considered it necessary to inform Revenue Canada, and accordingly, in a letter dated September 21st, 1980, Exhibit 23, vol. 1, expressed my apprehensions about the many dealings of a fraudulent nature conducted by Inder Chabra. 6. ... Further, any gain or recapture on the disposition of rental property should be subject to U.S. tax since the plaintiff, by making the election, is considered to be carrying on a trade or business in the U.S. ... I do not think the IRS’ conclusions regarding the figures used by the plaintiff could be considered manifestly erroneous, given the facts outlined by the plaintiff in his submission. ...

Against the backdrop of that standard, and having considered the parties’ respective written and oral submissions, I consider the following issues to represent an appropriate framework for the adjudication of these applications, including consideration of the Applicant’s principal arguments as captured in its articulation of the issues set out above: Is the Original Decision reasonable? ... In that case, the applicant’s representative had sought clarification surrounding the decision from the CBSA officer who made the decision, and the Court held that, having initiated the very communications in question, the applicant could not insist that they not be considered in assessing the reasonableness of the officer’s decision (at para 68). ... In arriving at this conclusion, I have considered the Applicant’s submission that, in reviewing the record for evidence of CBSA’s intention, the Court should not consider evidence that post-dates the Original Decision. ...

The fact that full payment would require the payment of interest as well as future instalments of principal, if in fact such payments became payable, does not in my view justify a conclusion that the interest portion of such full payment must be considered as a payment on account of capital, since it is merely one element which together with the payments of principal constitutes full payment. ... If it is concluded that the contract established the right to receive an amount which would however only be quantified in the three following years, then the interest paid on these capital payments once they were determined would be considered as income. ... What he had was rights to payment in accordance with the contract including undetermined amounts designated as interest therein which depended on the amounts of the capital payments to come due, and could not be considered as income from the property which had been sold. ...

Patricia Kronas testified that her father, a naval architect, was prepared to advance a substantial undisclosed sum to further the horticultural business of the company and that this commitment held despite her divorce from Eugene but that she still considered herself a member of the family. ... The price was the same and considered by the plaintiff, on advice from Balys Kronas, to be fair. ... Mr Braun, the president and managing director of that company, testified that he considered himself bound by that commitment (although legally he might not be) and extolled the advantages to the plaintiff and to his company. ...

Section 129 of the Income Tax Act reads as follows: Dividend Refund to Private Corporation 129. (1) Where a corporation was, at the end of any taxation year, a private corporation, if a return of its income for the year has been made within 4 years from the end of the year the Minister (a) may, upon mailing the notice of assessment for the year, refund without application therefor an amount (in this Act referred to as its “dividend refund” for the year) equal to the lesser of (i) /3 of all taxable dividends paid by it in the year on shares of its Capital stock, and (ii) its refundable dividend tax on hand at the end of the year; and (b) shall make such a refund after mailing the notice of assessment if application therefor has been made in writing by the corporation within 4 years from the end of the year. (2) Instead of making a refund that might otherwise be made under subsection (1), the Minister may, where the corporation is liable or about to become liable to make any payment under this Act, apply the amount that would otherwise be refundable to that other liability and notify the corporation of that action. (3) In this section, “refundable dividend tax on hand” of a private corporation at the end of any particular taxation year means the aggregate of amounts each of which is an amount in respect of any taxation year com- mencing after it last became a private corporation and ending not later than the end of the particular taxation year, equal to the least of (a) 25% of the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of its Canadian investment income for the year and its foreign investment income for the year exceeds the amount deductible under paragraph 111(1)(b) from the corporation’s income for the year, (b) the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of (i) 25% of the corporation’s Canadian investment income for the year, and (ii) the amount, if any, by which 40% of the corporation’s foreign investment income for the year exceeds the aggregate of amounts deducted under subsection 126(1) from the tax for the year otherwise payable by it under this Part, exceeds 25% of the amount deductible under paragraph 111(1)(b) from the corporation’s income for the year, (c) 25% of the amount, if any, by which the corporation’s taxable income for the year exceeds the aggregate of (i) 4 times the amount, if any, deductible under section 125, (ii) 10/4 of the aggregate of amounts deducted under subsection 126(1), and (iii) 2 times the aggregate of amounts deducted under subsection 126(2) from the tax for the year otherwise payable by it under this Part, and (d) the amount of the tax for the year otherwise payable by it under this Part, plus the aggregate of the taxes under Part IV payable by the corporation for the particular taxation year and any previous taxation years ending after it last became a private corporation, and minus the aggregate of the corporation’s dividend refunds for taxation years ending after it last became a private corporation and before the particular taxation year. (4) In subsection (3), (a) “Canadian investment income’’ of a corporation for a taxation year means the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of (i) the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of such of the corporation’s taxable capital gains for the year from dispositions of property as may reasonably be considered to be income from sources in Canada exceeds the aggregate of such of the corporation’s allowable capital losses for the year from dispositions of property as may reasonably be considered to be losses from sources in Canada, (ii) all amounts each of which is the corporation’s income for the year (other than exempt income or any dividend the amount of which was deductible under section 112 from its income for the year) from a source in Canada that is a property (other than a property used or held by the corporation in the year in the course of carrying on a business), determined, for greater certainty, after deducting all outlays and expenses deductible in computing the corporation’s income for the year to the extent that they may reasonably be regarded as having been made or incurred for the purpose of earning the income from that property, (iii) all amounts each of which is the corporation’s income for the year (other than exempt income) from a source in Canada that is a business other than an active business, determined, for greater certainty, after deducting all outlays and expenses deductible in computing the corporation’s income for the year to the extent that they may reasonably be regarded as having been made or incurred for the purpose of earning the income from that business, exceeds the aggregate of amounts each cf which is a loss of the corporation for the year from a source in Canada that is a property or business other than an active business; and (b) “foreign investment income’’ of a corporation for a taxation year means the amount, if any, by which (i) the amount that would be determined under paragraph (a) in respect of the corporation for the year if the references in paragraph (a) to “in Canada” were read as references to “outside Canada’’, exceeds (ii) the aggregate of all amounts deductible under section 113 from the corporation’s income for the year. (5) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the least of the amounts determined under paragraphs (3)(a) to (d) in respect of the 1972 or 1973 taxation year of a corporation is, (a) in respect of its 1972 taxation year, 93% of the least of the amounts so determined; and (b) in respect of its 1973 taxation year, the aggregate of (i) 93% of that proportion of the least of the amounts so determined that the number of days in that portion of the year that is before 1973 is of the number of days in the whole year, and (ii) 100% of that proportion of the least of the amounts so determined that the number of days in that portion of the year that is after 1972 is of the number of days in the whole year. (6) Where any particular amount paid or payable to a corporation (in this subsection referred to as the “recipient corporation”) by another corporation (in this subsection referred to as the ‘‘associated corporation”) with which the recipient corporation was associated in any particular taxation year commencing after 1972, would otherwise be included in computing the income or loss, as the case may be, of the recipient corporation for the particular year from a source that is property or a business other than an active business, the following rules apply: (a) for the purposes of subsection (4), in computing that income or loss, as the case may be, (i) there shall not be included any portion (in this subsection referred to as the “deductible portion”) of the particular amount that was or may be deductible in computing the income or loss, as the case may be, of the associated corporation for any taxation year from an active business carried on by it in Canada, and (ii) no deduction shall be made in respect of any outlay or expense, to the extent that that outlay or expense may reasonably be regarded as having been made or incurred by the recipient corporation for the purpose of gaining or producing the deductible portion; and (b) for the purposes of this subsection and section 125, (i) the deductible portion shall be deemed to be income of the recipient corporation for the particular year from carrying on an active business in Canada, and (ii) any outlay or expense, to the extent described in subparagraph (a)(ii), shall be deemed to have been made or incurred by the recipient corporation for the purpose of gaining or producing that income. ... The asset which produces investment income within the meaning of section 129 of the Act, on its sale or disposition will be considered for tax purposes as a sale or disposition of a capital asset and not of an inventory asset. 7. ...

They felt, as Mr Lucchési testified, that one of the problems in the Province of Quebec was a lack of sufficient people with administrative experience and considered that they could advise and help others realize on their investments. ... The requirement that two representatives of the plaintiff be on the board of directors of Fibracan at all times and the fact that this was to be the professed policy of the group in connection with any investments which Bourg- Royal would make, and that they considered that their engineering and business experience and financial and other contacts would be of substantial benefit to the small companies in which it was intended to invest, indicate that the policy was, if not to actually control the operation, to nevertheless be in a position to observe and influence the operation of the businesses in which investments were to be made, and thus to assist in turning these investments to a profit. ... What is the line which separates the two classes of cases may be difficult to define, and each case must be considered according to its facts; the question to be determined being—Is the sum of gain that has been made a mere enhancement of value by realising a security, or is it a gain made In an operation of business in carrying out a scheme for profit-making? ...