As readers of this newsletter well know, the clear message from the courts lately has been “Woe unto you taxpayers who participate in retail tax shelters or other tax-driven schemes!” The Federal Court of Appeal has reiterated that message in Nunn v. The Queen, 2006 FCA 403 (decision not yet available online).
ABILs
To claim an allowable business investment loss (an ABIL) in respect of an amount loaned to a corporation, a taxpayer must establish (among other things) that the amount has become a bad debt. Kyriazakos v. The Queen, 2007 TCC 66,…
Price adjustments
In Desormiers c. Lalumière, 2006 QCCS 2357, a son purchased shares from his mother and father for $500,000. The purchase and sale agreement stated that the purchase price was subject to adjustment: if the Minister of National Revenue determined that…
Lipson appeal
The Federal Court of Appeal, in Lipson v. The Queen, 2007 FCA 113, has dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal. Lipson was a GAAR decision of Chief Justice Bowman of the Tax Court.
Property
Every now and then a taxpayer proposes to transfer an intangible “something” to a corporation for valuable consideration. The taxpayer, or his or her advisers, would do well to read Tri Pacific Gas Corporation v. Canada, 2007 FCA 38, before proceeding.
De facto directors
An individual, even though not elected as a director by a corporation’s shareholders or shown as such in government records, can still be held liable for unremitted source deductions as a de facto director.
Another donation case
McPherson v. The Queen, 2006 TCC 648, is yet another tax shelter/donation case that has turned out badly for the donor, so far at least (the case is under appeal).
Hammill
The Supreme Court recently refused leave to appeal to the taxpayer in Hammill v. The Queen, 2005 FCA 252. I wrote about this case here.
Case update
On February 1, I will be speaking to the CRA practitioner’s group at the Royal Botanical Gardens about “Tax Cases of Interest”. I have written here about all of the cases on which I will present. The following table lists the cases together with some notes on their current status:
Salary to children
Bradley v. The Queen, 2006 TCC 500, is something of a surprise. The appellant paid salaries to her young children and attempted to deduct them. The CRA reassessed, and the Tax Court upheld the reassessment because, in the Court’s view, the appellant never really paid anything to the children. She merely deposited amounts to “in trust” accounts for the children over which the appellant had complete control.