In Oloya v R, 2011 TCC 308, the taxpayer transferred non-cash property to a charity, and the Court was willing to accept that it might have been transferred by way of a gift. The charity, however, issued a receipt that…
Point in time due diligence
A director of a corporation that fails to remit source deductions might be duly diligent to a point in time, and therefore not liable for the failure to that time, but not diligent after that time, and therefore liable for…
Coming soon to a taxpayer near you
In “Soliciting VDs?“, I wrote about the CRA’s “letter campaign”, which is supposed to “to inform taxpayers about their tax obligations and to encourage them to correct any inaccuracies in their past income tax and benefit returns.” The campaign continues,…
Income averaging?
Mark Hunter pointed out to me that paragraph 20(1)(j) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) doesn’t work well as an income-averaging tool if used in circumstances where the person taking the loan can’t repay it any time soon or will do so in a year without much income.
Donation tax shelter case
Hamilton’s own Mr Justice Randall Bocock goes head-to-head with Maréchaux in Berg v R, 2012 TCC 406.
Estate planning and personal use real property
I just listened to a helpful presentation on estate planning for personal use real property by Robin MacKnight at the Law Society’s seminar on “Taxation Issues in Real Estate Transactions“.
Subsection 83(2.1) applied
In Groupe Honco inc. c R, 2012 CCI 305, the Tax Court applied the anti-avoidance rule in subsection 83(2.1) to a dividend purported to be paid from the capital dividend account of a corporation taken over by another so that…
No rectification necessary
In Twomey v R, 2012 TCC 310, the taxpayer thought he had been issued 100 Common Shares in the capital of a corporation, but the minute book indicated he had received only one. The difference mattered: whether the taxpayer could…
Guindon appealed
The Crown filed its appeal in Guindon yesterday.
Family Law and the ITA
Folks, just a reminder that the parties to a family law dispute, even with the assistance of an order of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, cannot override the rules in the Income Tax Act respecting the taxation of support amounts.