In my post yesterday, I should have mentioned that Lipson v. The Queen, 2006 TCC 148, considered a set of transactions with some similarity to those considered by Mr. Justice Little in Overs v. The Queen, 2006 TCC 26, which is another recent Tax Court decision involving the general anti-avoidance rule. In Lipson, Chief Justice Bowman distinguished Overs on the grounds that, in the latter case (and in Evans v. The Queen, 2005 TCC 684, another of his own decisions), “there was, factually, an underpinning of commerciality or estate planning” while in “the scheme involved here [there are] no such redeeming features” (¶29). The Chief Justice does not elaborate.
