Purity
GST44
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.
ASPE is coming!
I just returned from the Canadian Tax Foundation’s Ontario Conference where Ruth Cummings (KPMG LLP) and Jane Bowen (University of Ontario Institute of Technology) gave a presentation on the new standards set out in the “Accounting Standards for Private Enterprises” (ASPE) and the “International Financial Reporting Standards” (IFRS).
CRA Trusts Initiative
I spoke at an Ontario Bar Association conference on October 2 along with David Louis from Minden Gross (among others). David’s presentation included some discussion of the CRA trust audit initiative about which we’ve heard so much. David had contacted the CRA’s Toronto TSO about the initiative, and it told him the following:
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.
No New Policy for VDs
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”)?