Search - considered

., discussed what are direct and what are indirect taxes, also the factors that should be considered and kept in mind in arriving at a conclusion as to the intention of the legislation as to who should bear the tax. ... Act have been considered in many cases, and as Lord Moulton says in Cotton v. ... Windsor [1923] 3 D.L.R. at p. 551, does not conclusively determine the question of ultra vires or intra vires raised in this proceeding, because (a) the statute considered by Orde, J., has been since amended, (b) the Supreme Court of Canada, in dismissing the appeal from the judgment pronounced by Orde, J., expressly refrained from pronouncing upon the question, being of the opinion that in the action then before the Court the appellant McLeod had no status to question the constitutional validity of the legislation. (3) That, although the assessment in 1923 is in respect of income received in 1922 (see see. 11(2)), yet such income was assessable in 1923. ...

I do not think that the patrons of the beer licensees, who expect to be treated, could be seriously considered as an advertising or sales promotion medium, and one might safely say that no brewer’s business could long survive on any patronage derived from those who look to be served with free beer. ... It is difficult to understand why it is considered necessary for brewers to make gifts of beer to the patrons of beer licensees, and one cannot but wonder why they do not agree among themselves to refrain from the practice. ... I am inclined also to think that the expenditures made by the appellant cannot be considered a necessary business expense because of the provisions of the Government Liquor Control Act of Manitoba, if indeed they are not expressly or impliedly forbidden by that Act, the sale of beer is so controlled and regulated that expenditures for treating would seem altogether unnecessary because everybody concerned with the trade is exactly upon the same footing; everything in the nature of advertising is severely limited, and no doubt that was deliberately done as a matter of public policy, in connection with this particular trade. ...

For the reasons stated in the Spruce Falls case (which need not be repeated here but may be considered as part of my reasons for judgment in this case), I hold that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of para. ... It may well be as suggested by counsel for the appellant that logs when “barked” are still logs: but in view of the limitations mentioned, I think that item of cost should be excluded entirely from the computation, “barking” being considered as part of the manufacturing:or processing. ... I considered that submission in the Spruce Falls case and for the reasons given in that case I must reject it. ...

That amount should therefore not be considered to modify the net worth calculation done by the Minister. [18] Since I have not accepted the appellant’s testimony on this point, I do not need to consider the respondent’s objection to the evidence. ... If the answer to that question is in the negative, then a sufficient nexus exists between the receipt and the loss of employment for the payment to be considered a retiring allowance. [5] [27] I find that in this case, it is obvious that there is a connection between the money the appellant received from his union and the loss of his employment. ... The request contained all the facts considered by the Minister in the calculation of the taxpayer’s income using the net worth method. ...

Verrico was advised that the request, as it related to the 2007-2011 tax years, could not be considered because it had been received more than ten years after the end of the tax years in issue. ... The Respondent submits that where a taxpayer makes reasonable inquiries but is misinformed, an error may be considered reasonable. [23] The Respondent submits that the MD reasonably concluded that the excess contributions in issue were not due to a reasonable error, because (1) the Applicant was warned of excess contributions in his NOAs as early as 2009; (2) many of his NOAs showed that he had excess RRSP contributions; (3) the CRA cannot be held responsible for erroneous RRSP information in NOAs where RRSP contributions are not reported or returns are filed late; (4) the Applicant is responsible for the errors made by third parties acting on his behalf; (5) the Applicant is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the information he provides on his tax return; and (6) the Applicant did not make withdrawals to eliminate excess contributions until 2019. [24] The Respondent notes that while the over contribution was perhaps not intentional, the absence of clear evidence to explain the error, the time periods involved, the apparent lack of knowledge of RRSP contribution rules, and the failure to withdraw the excess contributions are all factors that were addressed by the MD and justify the decision reached. ... However, the Respondent chose not to file evidence that would assist the Court in understanding the record; one of the well recognized exceptions to the general rule that fresh evidence is not to be considered on judicial review. ...

Decision under Review [8] By letter dated March 15, 2023, the CRA Agent assigned to the Further Second Review informed the Applicant that she was not eligible for the CERB, because she had not established that she met the requirements related to the cap on income during the applicable payment periods. [9] This CRA Agent considered the following in coming to this Decision: The procedure document that instructs CRA Agents on how to determine eligibility for the CERB; The relevant agency-wide Notepad Entries; The Case Specific Notepad Entries; The disclosure provided by the Applicant in support of her earlier reviews; The Applicant’s income and the deductions from income for the 2018 to 2020 taxation years as recorded on the CRA’s computer system; The Applicant’s T1 data summary for 2008 to 2022 taxation years as recorded on the CRA’s computer system; The Applicant’s Eligibility Overview as recorded on the CRA’s computer system; and The phone script used by CRA Agents when callers ask what types of documents are required to support eligibility. [10] Further to what the Applicant had indicated on the phone, the CRA Agent did not receive documentation from the Applicant as to her income for the months that she received the CERB. [11] In the Further Second Review Report, which forms part of the reasons (Aryan v. ... I take it that these were the documents that the Applicant refused to submit to the Agent, as she preferred to provide them directly to the Court: a) A Business Income Spreadsheet for 2020 (Exhibit C); b) A Business Income Spreadsheet for 2021 (Exhibit F); c) An internet invoice (Exhibit H); d) Utility invoices for Hydro and Reliance Insurance (Exhibits I & J); and e) A phone bill (Exhibit K); and f) An Amazon receipt for toys purchased (Exhibit L). [16] It is well established that the evidence considered in applications for judicial review is generally limited to the documentation that was before the administrative decision-maker: Maltais v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 817 at para 21. ... As such, the Applicant’s arguments to this Court amount to a request that I reweigh the evidence already considered by the decision-maker. ...

Preliminary Matter: Evidence Not Before the Decision-Maker [20] In the Respondent’s affidavit, the CRA Officer in question swore that the following exhibits contained in the Applicant’s Record were not before them at the time of the Decision: A CRA website page titled “Accounts locked on February 16” (Exhibit B); A TD Banking TFSA Statement for July 2021 (Exhibit D); A confirmation of payment to the CRA (Exhibit E); Handwritten notes regarding the Applicant’s telephone call to the CRA (Exhibit F); A letter to the CRA dated October 30, 2021 (Exhibit I); and The Second Decision letter, dated January 12, 2022 (Exhibit J). [21] On my review of the Record, Exhibits B, D, E, and F were not before the decision-maker and therefore should not be considered: Maltais v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 817 at para 21. ... Justice Little considered a similar fact scenario and found that an error based on the applicant’s reliance on the CRA MyAccount contribution room did not constitute a “reasonable error” sufficient to warrant tax relief. Justice Little considered the applicant’s argument that she was misled by the CRA because the MyAccount information did not reflect her actual contribution room. ...

Both were fined and sentenced to periods of incarceration, after which the present appeals were reactivated and a litigation timetable order issued. [5] Legal framework [9] Subsection 147(3) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) sets out the factors which may be considered by this Court in determining costs. In this instance, no expert witnesses testified so the relevant factors are as follows: a. the result of the proceeding; b. the amounts in issue; c. the importance of the issues; d. any offer of settlement made in writing; e. the volume of work; f. the complexity of the issues; g. the conduct of any party that tended to shorten or to lengthen unnecessarily the duration of the proceeding; h. the denial or the neglect or refusal of any party to admit anything that should have been admitted; i. whether any stage in the proceedings was (i) improper, vexatious, or unnecessary, or (ii) taken through negligence, mistake or excessive caution; and j. any other matter relevant to the question of costs. [10] Some key principles for determining a costs award include the following: a. the Court has broad discretion which must be exercised on a principled basis and not arbitrarily; [6] b. none of the factors in subsection 147(3) are determinative and all relevant factors should be considered; [7] c. costs are intended to be compensatory and contributory rather than punitive or extravagant, with the proper question being what the losing party’s appropriate contribution to the successful party’s costs should be; [8] d. a lump sum may be awarded after considering the amounts at issue, the complexity and importance of those issues, the work generated, and a party’s success; [9] e. there must be egregious circumstances for the court to consider awarding solicitor-client costs, which remain discretionary; [10] f. increased (partial indemnity) costs generally vary between 50 to 75 percent of solicitor-costs [11] but it is not settled law; [12] and g. exceptional circumstances are not needed for a costs award above the tariff. [13] Analysis and discussion (a) The result of the proceeding [11] The respondent was wholly successful with respect to the five appeals dismissed and one quashed. ... Gould did not file returns for any of the five years. [16] The appellants were also liable for unremitted GST in the amount of $67,165. [17] [14] The significance of the amounts in issue must be considered contextually and in relative terms. [18] In this instance, the amounts are significant relative to the appellants’ assertion that they earned no income in those years and in light of the context that the monies were derived from criminally fraudulent activities for which the appellants were found to be culpable. [19] [15] Therefore, this factor favours increased costs. ...

The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant company were: firstly, that the lands were not depreciable property; secondly, that the sale price should not be considered as being the amount of money stated in the agreement but the value of the debentures; and thirdly, that the proceeds of the disposition were not received in the appellant’s taxation year 1962 because the debentures were delivered only after the end of that year. ... In my view the distinction is invalid because the basis of the decision was the construction and effect of the relevant Regulation and Schedule, and this was not affected by the circumstance that the residual value had been considered non-existent. ... The second ground of appeal was that, because the sale price was payable by means of debentures, it should not be considered as being the amount of money stated in the agreement but the value of the debentures. ...

The letter stated that the Applicant did not meet the following criteria: (a) she earned more than $1,000 of employment or self-employment income during the applicable payment period; and (b) she did not stop working or have her hours reduced for reasons related to COVID-19. [11] In an entry in the Officer’s notes dated July 29, 2024 relating to their review of the Applicant’s CERB eligibility [the Officer’s Notes], the Officer summarized the evidence considered, the Officer’s analysis, and the Officer’s resulting conclusion, based on payslips that the Applicant had submitted related to her employment with HRCE, that the Applicant had exceeded the $1,000 income threshold for each of the six CERB payment periods. ... The Respondent submits that the Disputed Evidence was not before the Officer and therefore presumptively cannot be considered on judicial review. [17] It is trite law that, in reviewing the reasonableness of an administrative decision, the Court is typically required to restrict its review to consideration of evidence that was before the administrative decision-maker. ... Those payslips are included in the Certified Tribunal Record before the Court and demonstrate gross employment income consistent with the figures identified in the Officer’s Notes, exceeding $1,000 for each of the six relevant periods. [26] In so concluding, I have considered the Applicant’s position in this application that her employment income from HRCE did not exceed $1,000 in each period based on her net income as indicated in her payslips, i.e., her income after deduction of applicable income tax and potentially other deductions. ...