Onus

assumptions of mixed fact and law were not prejudicial to the taxpayer – and an FMV assumption instead is factual

onus on taxpayer, who did not keep records, to displace the net worth assessment results, with documentation or other “acceptable evidence”

a taxpayer had not “demolished” the Minister’s assumption where it is demonstrated to be somewhat incorrect

prima facie case requires a balance of probabilities

a CRA program to detect “zapped” sales did not alter the taxpayers’ burden to displace the Minister’s assumptions

Court of Appeal free to re-weigh the evidence once the failure of the trial judge to apply onus correctly was established

demolition of assumptions by taxpayer leaves Minister with the ordinary civil-suit persuasive burden

unfair to place the onus on taxpayer re facts which taxpayer could not reasonably be expected to know

failure to lead evidence as to allocation meant that the taxpayer was stuck with the ARQ allocation

taxpayer failed to meet onus of establishing donative intent