Legal Feeds
Canadian Lawyer
Supreme Court | Federal Court | Federal Appeal | Ontario Civil | Ontario Criminal | Tax Court

Tax Court of Canada

Case Law is a sample selection from the weekly summaries of notable unreported civil and criminal court decisions published in Law Times newspaper.

Single or multiple copies of the full text of any case digested in the newspaper or sampled here can be obtained by calling Case Law's photocopy department at:
(905) 841-6472 in Toronto,
(800) 263-3269 in Ontario and Quebec, or
(800) 263-2037 in other provinces.
To request a case online

For more Case Law every week, subscribe to Law Times.



Auditor did not take into account fair market value of donated wine bottles on international level

Taxpayer was wine aficionado who donated bottles of wine to charities. Wine bottles were auctioned off and proceeds were donated to registered charity in Gatineau, Quebec. In 2009, taxpayer donated three bottles of wine valued at amount of $350 each. In 2010, taxpayer donated three bottles of wine valued at total amount of $1,100. In 2011, taxpayer donated seven bottles of wine valued at total amount of $8,550. Minister reduced total amount of evaluation to $328, $344, and $2,672 for 2009-2011 taxation years respectively. Taxpayer appealed Minister’s assessments. Appeal allowed. Auditor did not take into account fair market value of wine bottles on international level. Auditor erroneously calculated capital investment, custom fees, transportation, sales tax, and insurances. Taxpayer provided sufficient documentary evidence. Auditor did not contradict taxpayer’s evidence.
De Santis c. R. (Apr. 17, 2015, T.C.C. [Informal Procedure], Robert J. Hogan J., File No. 2014-670(IT)I) 251 A.C.W.S. (3d) 529.



Proposed guarantor was not required to comply with rebate conditions

Purchaser entered into agreement of purchase and sale with builder to purchase home to be built. HZ was proposed guarantor of mortgage to finance purchase of house, and signed purchase of agreement and sale for that reason, but backed out before closing. FR became guarantor, but his replacement of HZ was not reflected in agreement of purchase and sale. Minister of National Revenue denied purchaser’s claim for new housing rebate under Excise Tax Act (Can.), on ground that purchaser and HZ did not satisfy condition of having intention that property be their primary place of residence. Purchaser appealed. Appeal allowed. HZ was not “particular individual” for purposes of s. 254(2)(a) of Act and was not required to comply with rebate conditions. HZ was only acting in capacity as agent in signing agreement of purchase and sale. Agent was not “recipient” as defined in s. 123(1) of Act. At commencement of hearing, Crown raised issue of whether purchaser intended property to be used as his primary place of residence. It was not fair for Crown to raise issue at such late stage and it was not considered.
Javaid v. R. (Apr. 17, 2015, T.C.C. [Informal Procedure], Judith M. Woods J., File No. 2014-1802(GST)I) 251 A.C.W.S. (3d) 525.

Constitutional Law


Human rights did not include right not to pay tax

Corporation wholly owned by taxpayer paid taxpayer certain amounts in 2007 through 2010 taxation years. Taxpayer reported some amounts as employment income, and other amounts were reported by corporation and taxpayer as subcontract payments. Canada Revenue Agency treated difference between what was reported by taxpayer and what was paid to him by corporation as income for 2007 through 2010. Taxpayer appealed. Appeal dismissed. Human rights as advanced in Canadian Constitution, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international human rights treaties did not extend to not paying tax and did not include right not to pay tax. Taxpayer acknowledged that if his arguments did not succeed, amounts reassessed and penalties imposed would be properly payable.
R. v. Davis (Mar. 17, 2015, T.C.C. [Informal Procedure], Patrick Boyle J., File No. 2014-3081(IT)I) 251 A.C.W.S. (3d) 170.



Amount of assessments reduced to amount of relevant Federal Court certificates

Director was controlling mind of three companies who did engineering work for developer. Developer did not pay its bills on timely basis, resulting in three companies taking collection actions, and eventually executing lien. Minister of National Revenue assessed director under s. 323 of Excise Tax Act (Can.), for Goods and Services Tax (GST) that company TE Inc. failed to remit and $86,222.48 in GST that company 306 Canada Inc. (TM) failed to remit. Director appealed. Appeals allowed in part. Amount of assessments reduced to amount of relevant Federal Court certificates. Certificate that Minister registered with Federal Court of Canada for TM’s unremitted net GST was $11,896.19 less than amount assessed. Section 323(2)(a) of Act provided that Minister may not assess amount in excess of amount of Federal Court certificate. Director knew that three companies were facing significant cash flow issues due to developer failing to pay invoices and chose not to make remittances, believing that developer would eventually pay and remittances could be made in future. Director took no steps to prevent failure by three companies to make remittances. Failure to make remittances in belief that failure could be corrected in future did not constitute defence under s. 323(3) of Act. While director may not have been able to foresee events that occurred with respect to developer’s contract, he was person who made decision not to pay certain of three companies’ accounts payable, including remittances. Director was not entitled to rely upon due diligence defence in s. 323(3) of Act.
Maxwell v. R. (Mar. 25, 2015, T.C.C. [General Procedure], Steven K. D’Arcy J., File No. 2011-2668(IT)G, 2011-2669(GST)G, 2011-2687(IT)G, 2011-2688(GST)G) 250 A.C.W.S. (3d) 711



Written separation agreement was required to permit principal residence designation

Taxpayer passed away in 2005. Taxpayer purchased property in Whistler in 1976. Taxpayer transferred property to husband in 1991 for one dollar, but did not report disposition. Husband sold property in 2003 for $350,000. Gain of property was attributed to taxpayer. For 2003 tax return, taxpayer had not claimed property as her principal residence. Husband passed away in 2011, and had other property designated as principal residence from 1992 until his death. Assessment for 2003 was completed in 2013 and Minister refused to designate Whistler property as taxpayer’s principal residence for reason that another family member had made principal residence designation in respect of another property for same time period. Minister calculated capital gain of $243,009 was made in disposition and was attributed to taxpayer pursuant to s. 74.1(1) of Income Tax Act (Can.). Trustee testified that taxpayer and her husband separated in 1983, and son stated that taxpayer did not live at property and that property was family vacation property. No written separation agreement was found. Estate appealed. Appeal dismissed. Written separation agreement was required by Act and was requirement in circumstance. If taxpayer was still married only one of taxpayer and spouse could designate property as principal residence except if taxpayer and spouse were separated under written separation agreement pursuant to s. 54(c) of Act.
Balanko Estate v. R. (Mar. 19, 2015, T.C.C. [Informal Procedure], Gerald J. Rip J., File No. 2014-3116(IT)I) 250 A.C.W.S. (3d) 526.



Taxpayers purchased from accountants false donation receipts use to claim tax credits

Taxpayers were husband and wife who made charitable donations. CRA believed that receipts for donations were forged by tax preparers. Minister of National Revenue assessed taxpayers under Income Tax Act for 2005-2009 taxation years. Taxpayers appealed. Appeal dismissed. Taxpayers were not in position to make alleged donations given financial circumstances. Taxpayers’ explanations for donations were not plausible. Husband participated in scheme for five years and matter could not be said to be one of momentary lapse of judgment. Wife could not be absolved of responsibility even if she relied on judgment of others. Taxpayers purchased from their accountants false donation receipts that were used to claim tax credits to which they were not entitled. Taxpayers were not instigators of schemes but could not escape tax liability. Assessment for years outside of regular limitation period was justified as taxpayers knowingly made false representations in respect of donations disallowed by Minister.
Vekkal v. R. (Nov. 18, 2014, T.C.C. [Informal Procedure], Robert J. Hogan J., File No. 2013-882(IT)I, 2013-883(IT)I) 246 A.C.W.S. (3d) 723.



Investor was shareholder only and not de facto director

Investor was shareholder of taxpayer company that operated pub. Investor signed some documents that indicated he was director of company. Investor signed disclaimer letter to Canada Revenue to unfreeze company’s bank account, after minister issued requirement to pay in respect of unremitted source and GST deductions. Company ceased operations. Minister assessed investor as director for company’s unremitted deductions. Investor appealed. Appeal allowed. Investor did not know he could be considered director and did not execute proper documentation to become director. Proper steps were not taken by company to appoint investor and so under Business Corporations Act (N.B.), investor was not de jure director. Facts established that investor was shareholder only and not de facto director. All major decisions relating to business were made by other persons. Investor was co-signer for business cheques only because two signatures were required and obtained loan to keep company afloat because he was told that otherwise shareholders would lose their investments. Investor signed letter to CRA as owner without even reviewing it. Investor did not even know where account books were located or how to turn lights on when he sought new management. Investor was naive individual whose conduct only demonstrated that he was trying to protect his investment. Investor relied entirely upon preparers of documents that he signed who did not explain nature of documents or financial situation of company.
MacDonald v. R. (Oct. 20, 2014, T.C.C. [Informal Procedure], Eugene P. Rossiter A.C.J., File No. 2013-2568(IT)I, 2013-2569(GST)I) 245 A.C.W.S. (3d) 332.
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
Page 5 of 11

More Law Times TV...

Law Times poll

An estate trustee who took an ‘egregious' position in litigation has been ordered to personally pay more than $140,000 in costs. Will this ruling serve as an appropriate caution to executors on how they conduct themselves in litigation?
Yes, this will remind trustees of the potential exposure of significant awards being made against them personally.
No, it’s unlikely this ruling will dissuade executors from engaging in unreasonable conduct during litigation.