T1135

A taxpayer is required to file a form T1135 in respect of foreign property, including foreign securities, even if the securities are held in a Canadian brokerage account. If you fail to file the form in these circumstances, and the…

Marechaux appeal dismissed

Robert Kepes of Morris & Morris LLP reports that the Federal Court of Appeal today dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal in Maréchaux v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 587, a case which I wrote about here. Apparently, the taxpayer’s counsel struggled valiantly, but the Court, after listening to him, took a 15-minute break and then rendered a decision from the bench without hearing from the Justice lawyer.

Sometimes limitation periods matter

I’m often forced to explain to clients that, when it comes to tax debts and assessments, the “usual” limitation periods don’t apply. Mr. Justice Juriansz, in Danso-Coffey v. Ontario, 2010 ONCA 171, wrote that “time limits and limitation periods serve a valuable function in the legal process by promoting finality.” That principle is true for you and me, but the government is special, after all, and so “finality” doesn’t really apply to tax debts and the ability of the government to issue assessments in many cases. The Ontario government, in particular, with all its money and resources, can take its time about collecting debts or issuing assessments, and often does. Browning v. The Queen, 2010 TCC 487, then, is a refreshing reminder that sometimes even the government needs to respect limitation periods.

PUC Shifts

In my article on multiple classes of shares, I described the difficulties that can arise where shareholders subscribe for shares of a class in the capital of a corporation at different times and at different prices per share. How does one solve the problems that can arise where shareholders own shares with tax costs that differ from the paid-up capital (“PUC”) of their shares for the purposes of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the “Act”)?