Disability plans
Donation shelters—the plot thickens
Price adjustments
In a post I wrote in the spring, I summarized briefly Desormiers c. Lalumière, 2006 QCCS 2357, a decision of the Quebec Superior Court, which seemed to call into question the effectiveness of price adjustment clauses.
Prorogued
Garnishments
A garnishment (or “requirement to pay”) under section 224 of the Income Tax Act can be a real headache for the garnishee. The garnishee is put in the middle of another taxpayer’s troubles with the CRA, and the scope of the requirement is sometimes unclear.
U.S. Treaty amended
Finance just announced that “Canada’s New Government Sign[ed] Protocol to the Canada-U.S Tax Treaty for the Benefit of Canadians”. The news release summarizes the changes implemented as follows:
Fairness
Revival
Subsection 227.1(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the “Act”) permits the CRA to assess a director of a corporation for the corporation’s failure to remit source deductions. Subsection 227.1(4) of the Act, however, provides that
no action … to recover any amount payable by a director of a corporation under subsection [227.1(1)] shall be commenced more than two years after the director last ceased to be a director of that corporation.
What happens if a director, who is otherwise potentially liable under section 227.1, fails to resign, but the corporation of which he is a director dissolves involuntarily and more than two years passes before the CRA issues an assessment under section 227.1?
Baxter, 2007 FCA 172
In Baxter v. The Queen, 2006 TCC 230, Mr. Justice Bell examined the definition of “tax shelter” in the Income Tax Act and concluded that the appellant taxpayer, a Mr. Baxter, did not buy a shelter when he purchased trading software. The Federal Court of Appeal disagreed and allowed the Crown’s appeal.