Search - considered

The Minister has the onus of establishing the facts that support the imposition of gross negligence penalties in these appeals. [20]   Respondent counsel referred me to the case of DeCosta v The Queen, 2005 TCC 545, 59 DTC 1436, where the then Chief Justice Bowman set out the factors that need to be considered when deciding whether evidence points to “ordinary negligence” of a taxpayer as opposed to “gross negligence.” ...

I did not request any further submissions on costs in my decision nor invited the parties to make any further submissions in the event they were not satisfied with my decision on costs, but the Appellant has brought a motion in writing for an award of costs by way of lump sum equal to 50% of its select counsel fees for 2 counsel totalling $281,827.65 inclusive of GST/HST which amounts to $140,913.83 together with $11,300 for bringing this motion for additional costs and disbursements of $1,591.94; all of which total $153,805.77. [2]   The Respondent agrees the Appellant should be entitled to a bit more than Tariff costs and argues twice the Tariff costs of $10,177.60 inclusive of disbursements should suffice. [3]   There is no dispute that Rule 147 grants the Court complete discretion in determining the amount of costs, their allocation and the persons required to pay them and that Rule 147(3) sets out the factors that the Court may consider in exercising such discretion which must be considered on a principled basis. ...

Analysis [15]   In written submissions, the Respondent argues that the Appellant “should have paid tax on the excess contributions to the RRSP pursuant to section 3 of the Act” and that the loss in the actual monetary value of the investments in the RRSP “does not impact the Appellant’s requirement to pay tax and should not be considered”. ...

In that decision, Deputy Judge Jorré considered what would happen if an employer refused to provide a T2200 to an employee. ...

As a result, the legal expenses incurred are considered a non-deductible personal expense for tax purposes. [21]   On cross-examination, the appellant acknowledged that he retired as a member of the Barreau on September 15, 2014 and, as such, could not practice law in 2015 even though he was registered on the Barreau’s roll as a retired lawyer. ...

According to her, the fact that the appellant did not become a shareholder of the Company in 2002 was simply a technicality that she considered unimportant. ...

The deduction of accounting expenses in relation to the business for each of the subject years seems to show that the Minister had not considered the business had ceased. ...

She considered herself as being an executive assistant although the accountant of 9249-7403 Québec Inc. was taking care of the deductions at source, the Goods and Services tax returns, the accounts payable and receivable, the financial statements and the invoicing of clients. [8]   In performing her duties, she used all year round a company car to run errands and a company cellphone at the company’s expense. [9]   When cross-examined, Ms. ...

However, nowhere is it stated that non-compliance with the statute voids a reported dividend for the purposes of a section 160 assessment. [23]   In Larouche v R, 2010 FCA 32, the Federal Court of Appeal considered a similar case in which a taxpayer argued the treatment of a dividend must be determined based on principles of provincial corporate and civil law. ...

The Minister considered the unreported amounts as being shareholder benefits. ...