Non-competes, again

Thursday last I tried, once again, to explain the restrictive covenant rules in proposed section 56.4 of the Income Tax Act (Canada) to a seminar hosted by the Hamilton Law Association (please send an email to me if you would like a copy of the PowerPoint presentation). I’m not sure how well I succeeded. I find the rules difficult to work with and impossible to explain because they are so full of apparently random tricks and traps.

Procedure

In Corsi v. The Queen, 2008 TCC 472, the CRA sent a 160 assessment to the taxpayer by registered mail in June, 2004, to her home address, which was not the address the CRA had on file for the taxpayer. For whatever reason, the taxpayer didn’t pick up the mail, and it was returned to the CRA. The CRA did nothing more with the assessment, but some time thereafter CRA Collections started calling the taxpayer. This was the first she heard about the assessment. The CRA then mailed a copy of the assessment to the taxpayer’s accountant in October, 2005, more than one year and 90 days after the first assessment was supposedly sent.

Directors and revival, again

In Leger v. The Queen, 2007 TCC 322 (which I discussed here) the Court held that the dissolution of a corporation that was later revived did not engage the two-year limitation period otherwise applicable under subsection 227.1(4) of the Income Tax Act. Mr. Justice Bowie arrived at a different conclusion in Aujla v. The Queen, 2007 TCC 764, in respect of a company under the British Columbia Company Act.

Control Premiums

David Louis at Minden Gross has an interesting article in the October 16 issue of Tax Topics on control premiums for “thin voting shares” (shares that do not participate significantly in the earnings or assets of a corporation but that confer voting rights on the holder). The CRA, at the 2007 CTF Tax Conference, when asked about such shares responded that “It is the opinion of the CRA that a hypothetical purchaser would be willing to pay some amount for the voting control of a company.”