Reminder from Mom
Classes of shares
As readers of this blog know, the Ontario Business Corporations Act was amended late last year to provide that
The articles [of a Corporation] may provide that two or more classes of shares or two or more series within a class of shares may have the same rights, privileges, restrictions and conditions.
Robin MacKnight, writing in the Canadian Tax Foundation’s Tax for the Owner-Manager in July, pointed out that:
At the 2007 STEP National Conference, the CRA was asked how it would interpret this change in the context of the attribution and income-splitting rules. Not surprisingly, its response was that tax consequences depend on more than just a name, and it would not necessarily recognize a distinction between classes of shares on that basis alone.
Requirements
At some point, I will write a longer piece on requirements to pay, but for now I will rest content with pointing to Encan Construction Ltd v. The Queen, 2007 TCC 579, as an example of the heavy burden they can impose on a taxpayer.
Soccer appeal denied
Disability plans
Donation shelters—the plot thickens
Price adjustments
In a post I wrote in the spring, I summarized briefly Desormiers c. Lalumière, 2006 QCCS 2357, a decision of the Quebec Superior Court, which seemed to call into question the effectiveness of price adjustment clauses.
Prorogued
Garnishments
A garnishment (or “requirement to pay”) under section 224 of the Income Tax Act can be a real headache for the garnishee. The garnishee is put in the middle of another taxpayer’s troubles with the CRA, and the scope of the requirement is sometimes unclear.