Search - considered

The Honourable Judge Kempo, Tax Court of Canada, considered the issue where the Crown sought to apply subsection 245(1) of the Act to disallow to a taxpayer the cost of inventory incurred by a predecessor, Fraserview. ... Considered separately neither of these elements justifies a disallowance of the interest paid under subsection 245(1). ... In the present appeal, the purchase by Elco of the 0.001 per cent interest in Fording River Coal Mine, with the right to take minerals therefrom, and the reacquisition by Fording of that interest, was part of a larger transaction of considerable magnitude-all factors being considered, including Fording later increasing its stake in the joint venture by buying out Stelco’s interest for the sum of $225,000-between corporations entering into a legitimate business arrangement. ...

Moreover, PHLF is a Tax Court of Canada informal procedure decision with no precedential value. [52] While informal procedure decisions may still be considered, it is up to the trial judge to make that determination. [53] [40] In Authorson, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that “[t]he due process protections of property in the Bill of Rights do not grant procedural rights in the process of legislative enactment.” [54] The issue in Authorson also pertained to parliamentary procedure, not to parliamentary competence. ... The requirements found at sections 21 and 22 have no bearing on section 35, and vice versa. [55] Furthermore, the Rules of the Senate of Canada are relevant and should therefore be considered by this Court. [56] For a law to be enacted with the Senate’s consent, the Rules of the Senate of Canada must be followed. ... Consequently, even if the Respondent’s motion had been denied, the Court could not have considered the Appellant’s request for costs. ...

Also, the fresh step rule was invoked under Rule 8(b), but since Chad had plead over the impugned paragraphs, Chad had waived any irregularities. [63] [125] The jurisprudence reveals that a proper time for filing a motion to strike is shortly after the notice of appeal is filed or by the time the Respondent has fully considered the pleading upon preparing the reply. [64] [126] The following chronology illustrates the timeline between receipt of Propak’s pleading in October 2018 and bringing the strike Motion in July 2021: In January 2020, Propak served its list of documents, and in November 2019 and February 2020 filed supplementary lists of documents. ... The FCA considered a taxpayer’s appeal from a Tax Court judgment granting the Minister’s motion to strikeout parts of the pleading alleging abuse of process during the course of CCRA’s audit. ... The FCA considered Bakorp’s appeal from the Tax Court granting the Minister’s strike motion to dismiss the appeal from assessment because it had failed to comply with the requirements of subsection 169(2.1) of the ITA. [34] 2003 FCA 471 [Potash]. ...

Sommerfeldt Appearances: Counsel for the Appellant: Lane Zabolotney Counsel for the Respondent: John Krowina Sonia Lee   JUDGMENT Having considered the evidence and the submissions presented by the parties, and in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment (the “Reasons”), the Appeals are allowed, and the reassessments that are the subject of the Appeals are referred back to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration and reassessment, on the basis that: (a) The fees that the Appellant billed, collected, temporarily held for and on behalf of LIMARP (as described in the Reasons), and then, whether as an agent, a bare trustee, a conduit or some other form of intermediary, remitted to LIMARP, belonged to LIMARP, and not to the Appellant, with the result that those fees did not form part of the consideration received by the Appellant for the services that it supplied, and with the further result that the Appellant was not required to collect the goods and services tax (“GST”) or the harmonized sales tax (“HST”) in respect of those fees. ... The Crown submits that there was no such agency relationship. (1) Agency Principles [43] Professor Fridman has provided the following definition of “agency”: Agency is the relationship that exists between two persons when one, called the agent, is considered in law to represent the other, called the principal, in such a way as to be able to affect the principal’s legal position by the making of contracts or the disposition of property. [68] [44] In Kinguk Trawl, the Federal Court of Appeal noted that the essential ingredients of an agency relationship are the following: 1. ... Pompa’s description of the relationship between MELP and LIMARP. [91] (e) Finding [62] By reason of the factors considered above, I am of the view that, from 2010 to mid‑2016, there was an implied agency relationship between MELP and LIMARP. ...

The Appellants established that the Respondent never considered the deductibility of the Stranded Disbursements when disallowing the expense; it became clear at the hearing that the Respondent’s assumption in disallowing the Stranded Disbursements related to the inability of such amounts to qualify as bad debts. [44]         The testimony regarding the Partnership’s accounting system and practices, the composition, analysis and nature of the Stranded Disbursements and the logical reasons why these were otherwise deductible business expenses (not previously deducted), satisfy the Court that such expenses existed and that deductions are permitted in accordance with 18(1)(a) of the Act, which provides: In computing the income of a taxpayer from a business or property no deduction shall be made in respect of General limitation (a) an outlay or expense except to the extent that it was made or incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the business or property; [45]         In short, because the Partnership had the option of deducting the expenses, the Minister’s assumption regarding the extra step (applicable to accounts receivable) does not apply where the Partnership merely elects to absorb the “outlays” as non-recoverable costs and deduct same from aggregate professional income. ...

  [79]         During counsel for the Respondent’s argument, I was left with the impression that the Respondent considered the Minister to have the same authority as the Court to determine the use of documents provided in the course of discovery.   ...

A number of possible situations are considered in the management of a registered retirement savings plan. ...

By the application of subsection 110.6(11), the appellant is deemed to have dealt with herself, meaning that the transaction is considered as having been carried out with a person who is not at arm’s length to the appellant. ...

United States, supra, the subject was fully considered in determining that neither the value of quarters nor the amount received as commutation of quarters by an Army officer is included within his taxable income. ...

The respondent states that the points raised by the appellants in their objections and appeals have not been considered at the audit level and their fast tracking the matters into court not only puts a spanner into the orderly and deliberate progress of the audit process but also catapults the respondent into court with unseemly haste. [24]     Although this may be inconvenient for the CCRA, it is not a reason to deprive a taxpayer- whether it be a huge multinational corporation or the humblest one of Her Majesty's loyal subjects- of clear statutory rights that the Income Tax Act confers. [25]     Those rights are simple and straightforward: a taxpayer who objects to an assessment can file a notice of objection within 90 days of the assessment and if the Minister of National Revenue does not respond by way of a confirmation or a reassessment within 90 days of the filing of the notice of objection the taxpayer may appeal to the Tax Court of Canada. [26]     There are a few restrictions on the right of appeal, such as the following. ...