In Coutre v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 456, the taxpayer tried to argue that, if an assessment under subsection 15(1) is made against a shareholder, then the Minister, to prevent double taxation, must reduce the benefit by the amount of any outstanding shareholder loan.
Valid Appeals and Objections
The Tax Court, in Kubbernus v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 311, confirmed that a taxpayer cannot file an appeal to the Court for a reassessment issued at the taxpayer’s request pursuant to the taxpayer relief provisions.
Paying dividends with a note
In a post I wrote last year, I stated
According to the CRA, it is not necessary to use cash to pay the dividend. A corporation can pay a dividend using a note, but the payee must accept the note as absolute payment of the dividend.
Related Business
A charity cannot carry on a business unless it is a “related business”, which is a business that is related to the objects of the charity and that employs only volunteers. After the decision in Alberta Institute on Mental Retardation…
Contradiction
In January I reported that the Tax Court had held that the penalty provided by subsection 163(2.1) of the Income Tax Act did not apply if the corporation filing the return did not have taxable income (see Goar, Allison &…
Crooks
In Langille v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 139, the taxpayer attempted to claim an ABIL for amounts advanced to a corporation he controlled. The corporation in turn had suffered losses because it had participated in a joint venture that turned out to be a fraud.
Limitation Periods and Collections
In Markevich v. The Queen, 2003 SCC 9, the Supreme Court held that a limitation period applied to prevent the CRA from collecting an old tax debt. The CRA was no different from the rest of us, the Court said: limitation periods exist for good reasons, and the reasons apply to the government as well as those it governs.
Tax cases of interest
I presented “Tax Cases of Interest” at the CRA’s quarterly Tax Practitioner’s Consultation Group meeting at the Royal Botanical Gardens this morning.
Capital dividends and 160
The Tax Court, in Neumann v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 81, has decided that a capital dividend is a transfer of property for the purposes of section 160, just like an ordinary dividend.
Local flavour
Here’s a case with some local flavour, of a sort: Dundurn Street Loffts Inc. v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 122.