2.0

Over the last few years, lawyers’ magazines and newspapers have been full of talk about “Web 2.0” and its significance for the legal profession. To some degree, I remain a skeptic, despite that I have been blogging (a quintessential 2.0 activity) since 2005.

Rectification

Tax practitioners will be familiar with the Juliar case, which allowed the parties to a transaction to amend it with retroactive effect in order to avoid adverse income tax consequences. According to the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in the case, it didn’t matter that the only purpose for the amendment was to avoid or postpone income taxes. What mattered was that the parties had a continuing, common intention to effect the transactions in a tax-deferred manner, which intention was thwarted by the form of the transaction.

The Ontario Superior Court came to a different conclusion in Binder v. Saffron Rouge Inc., 2008 CanLII 1662 because the parties did not have the requisite common intention.

New Associate Chief Justice

Most tax practitioners will have heard that a 25-year veteran of the Tax Court was appointed as its new Chief Justice earlier this month. Gerald Rip takes over from Donald Bowman, who turned 75 this month. The Prime Minister also appointed Eugene Rossiter as the new Associate Chief Justice. Justice Rossiter is a relative newcomer to the Court: he was only appointed in 2006. Perhaps he is being groomed for the Chief’s chair.

Not-for-profit

BBM Canada v. The Queen, 2008 TCC 341, is a surprise, not because of the result but because of the novel position advanced by the Crown in support of the assessment in question. The organization assessed had taken the position that it was exempt from tax under paragraph 149(1)(l) of the Income Tax Act because it was a not-for-profit. The CRA thought otherwise.