Search - considered

  [25]         Having considered all the evidence on file, I find that the Minister is justified in concluding that Canada Inc. is a tax offender and is likely a provider of invoices of convenience. ... They can succeed in this purpose only if the requirements are considered mandatory and are strictly enforced. ...

Turcott indicated that the SR&ED expenses were disallowed because he considered that the information gathered did not make it possible for him to determine whether the appellant’s activities were SR&ED within the meaning of section 248 of the Act. ... Agencies. [16] [81]   Circular 86-4R3, which was first replaced by the circular dated December 19, 2012, and then by the circular dated April 24, 2015, has always been considered to be “a generally useful and reliable guide” given that that policy was the result of extensive consultations between the government and the scientific community in industry as well as at universities. [82]   In order to determine whether the appellant’s project in relation to the mandrel during the 2012 and 2013 taxation years was an SR&ED activity, the five questions above must be analyzed in light of the facts of this case. (1) Was there any scientific or technological uncertainty? ...

For example, he can succeed either by establishing on a balance of probabilities new facts not considered by the Minister showing that he did not earn the alleged unreported income, or by demonstrating that the Minister’s assumptions of fact are wrong. ... While the translated name of these documents is the informal “IOU”, they appear to be fully considered and properly set out loan agreement documents. ...

Having considered all the evidence and the case law, I am not persuaded that the work in issue involved technological risk or uncertainty that could not be removed by standard procedures or routine engineering. [40]          This conclusion applies with equal force in the present appeal. [41]          Furthermore, I am also not convinced by Mr. ... The word hypothesis in this context is normally considered to mean a provisional concept which is not inconsistent with known facts and serves as a starting point for further investigation by which it may be proved or disproved objectively. ...

Therefore, its business would be considered a specified investment business, unless one of the exceptions in the definition of that term applies. [69]          Since the Appellant did not directly employ more than five full-time employees in any of the relevant taxation years, the only exception that could apply is found in paragraph (b) of the definition of “specified investment business”. ... The salary of the building managers was set on the basis of 40 hours of work per week at minimum wage, and while the hours were flexible, where the job was performed by one individual, the manager was required to work the regular number of working hours each week that is considered full-time. ...

For income tax purposes, the jurisprudence has established that “a gift is a voluntary transfer of property owned by a donor to a donee, in return for which no benefit or consideration flows to the donor.” [19] Tax advantages received from a gift, however, is not normally considered a “benefit” that would vitiate the gift because doing so means charitable donations deductions would be unavailable to donors. [50]   Accordingly, there must be: (1) a voluntary transfer of property by the donor; (2) the donor owned the property immediately prior to the transfer; and (3) the donor did not receive a non-tax benefit from the donation. [51]   Subsequently, the Federal Court of Appeal clarified the third requirement in Friedberg, that anticipation of or expectation of a material benefit by the donor is sufficient to vitiate an otherwise valid gift. [20] The third no-benefit requirement is also expressed as whether the donor had donative intent at the time the donor made the gift. [21] Accordingly, the issue in this appeal is whether the appellant had the donative intent when he made the Payments to Global. ... Gross negligence connotes a much greater degree of negligence amounting to reprehensible recklessness.” [33] [69]   The appellant’s claim for the Deduction in his tax return must have been tantamount to intentional acting and rise to the level of reprehensible recklessness. [70]   Personal circumstances of a taxpayer must be considered in determining gross negligence penalties including the magnitude of the misstatement in the tax return, the taxpayer’s opportunity to detect the misstatement, and the taxpayer’s expected understanding of basic taxation principles given her or his education and apparent intelligence. [34] [71]   In 2000 and 2001, the appellant was employed as a driver delivering meat products. ...

I find that the Appellant is the person who made the decision to travel on his space trip and that his overarching reasons for that decision were personal for the following reasons: a) He intended to take the trip personally and it was never a possibility that any other Cirque du Soleil official, entertainer or promoter travel in his stead. b) In his testimony, the Appellant grounded all of his travels including his space trip to his childhood visit to Expo 67, a family trip to Cuba when he was fourteen, watching Neil Armstrong walk on the moon, and St-Exupéry’s Le Petit Prince. c) There was no evidence Cirque du Soleil would have considered sending anyone else on this trip, or any comparable stunt, in 2009 to raise its brand awareness or to generate helpful media for its entry in the Russian market in the absence of M. ... I have found that this space trip falls into the latter category, and the tax consequences to the business income are considered and determined accordingly. 11. ...

It must involve a high degree of negligence tantamount to intentional acting, an indifference as to whether the law is complied with or not. [44]   Wilful blindness will be established if the respondent establishes on a balance of probabilities that the taxpayer subjectively knew that the statements in his or her income tax return were false but chose not to make further inquiries because he or she subjectively knew or strongly suspected that the inquiries would provide him or her with the knowledge that the statements were indeed false. [3] Since it is a subjective test, the personal attributes of the individual may be considered in determining whether the individual is wilfully blind. [4] [45]   On the other hand, the “gross negligence” standard is an objective test. ... Although this factor may seem minor, when considered cumulatively with the other factors, it is still another warning sign that the appellant chose to ignore. ...

In doing so, the Minister relied on the specific anti-avoidance rule in subsection 256(2.1). [6]   Subsection 256(2.1) prevents a company from claiming the small business deduction if it may reasonably be considered that one of the main reasons for the separate existence of that company was to reduce the amount of taxes that would otherwise be payable under the Act. Subsection 256(2.1) states that: For the purposes of this Act, where, in the case of two or more corporations, it may reasonably be considered that one of the main reasons for the separate existence of those corporations in a taxation year is to reduce the amount of taxes that would otherwise be payable under this Act..., the two or more corporations shall be deemed to be associated with each other in the year. [7]   The issue in this appeal is whether one of the main reasons for the separate existence of the Appellant was to reduce the amount of tax that was otherwise payable under the Act. ...

These provisions state: 160.1(1) Where excess refunded — Where at any time the Minister determines that an amount has been refunded to a taxpayer for a taxation year in excess of the amount to which the taxpayer was entitled as a refund under this Act, the following rules apply: (a) the excess shall be deemed to be an amount that became payable by the taxpayer on the day on which the amount was refunded; and (b) the taxpayer shall pay to the Receiver General interest at the prescribed rate on the excess (other than any portion thereof that can reasonably be considered to arise as a consequence of the operation of section 122.5 or 122.61) from the day it became payable to the date of payment. (3) Assessment  — The Minister may at any time assess a taxpayer in respect of any amount payable by the taxpayer because of subsection (1) (…), and the provisions of this Division (including, for greater certainty, the provisions in respect of interest payable) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, in respect of an assessment made under this section, as though it were made under section 152 in respect of taxes payable under this Part. ... More specifically, the Appellant argues that the portion of the Payment that sought to refund the taxes paid by the Appellant ($1,809,598) was not a refund within the meaning of subsection 164(1) and that the portion intended as interest on the refund of taxes ($767,633) was not made pursuant to subsection 164(3). [64]   Subsection 164(1) allows the Minister to make refunds to taxpayers: 164(1) Refunds — If the return of a taxpayer’s income for a taxation year has been made within 3 years from the end of the year, the Minister (a) may, (i) (…) (ii) (…) (iii) on or after sending the notice of assessment for the year, refund any overpayment for the year, to the extent that the overpayment was not refunded pursuant to subparagraph (i) or (ii); and (b) shall, with all due dispatch, make the refund referred to in subparagraph (a)(iii) after sending the notice of assessment if application for it is made in writing by the taxpayer within the period within which the Minister would be allowed under subsection 152(4) to assess tax payable under this Part by the taxpayer for the year if that subsection were read without reference to paragraph 152(4)(a). (…) (3) Interest on refunds and repayments — If, under this section, an amount in respect of a taxation year (other than an amount, or a portion of the amount, that can reasonably be considered to arise from the operation of section 122.5 or 122.61) is refunded or repaid to a taxpayer or applied to another liability of the taxpayer, the Minister shall pay or apply interest on it at the prescribed rate for the period that begins on the day that is the latest of the days referred to in the following paragraphs and that ends on the day on which the amount is refunded, repaid or applied: (…) (My Emphasis.) [65]   Subparagraphs 164(1)(a)(i) and (ii) (not reproduced) are not applicable since both refer to a refund of an amount “ claimed in the return as an overpayment for the year” (My Emphasis) and, in this instance, it seems apparent that the Appellant had not claimed a refund of an overpayment for the 2003 taxation year. [66]   However, subparagraph 164(1)(a)(iii) suggests that the Minister may, “on or after sending the Notice of Assessment (...) refund any overpayment for the year”. [67]   Paragraph 164(1)(b) would not be applicable since it contemplates an application “made in writing by the taxpayer” which the Appellant had not filed. [68]   This analysis is supported by Tawa Developments Inc. v. ...