I presented “Current Tax Cases” at the CRA’s Hamilton and District Tax Consultation Group on June 1, 2006 at the Royal Botanical Gardens. You can download my PowerPoint presentation here.
Food stamps for clients
A real estate agent provides vouchers for food and entertainment to his clients. The agent does not control how the clients use the vouchers, and he does not consume the food or attend the entertainments provided by the vouchers. Can…
The Charter and the Tax Court
Subsection 171(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the Act) sets out the jurisdiction of the Tax Court in income tax appeals. In general, the subsection does not permit the Tax Court to review the process by which the Minister arrives at an assessment. Rather, the Tax Court is empowered to determine only whether the amount of tax assessed is correct. It appears that even the Charter of Rights does not change this position: see Burrows v. The Queen, 2005 TCC 761 (not yet available online).
SCC Dismisses Art Donation Appeals
The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the taxpayer’s application for leave to appeal from the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada (Attorney General) v. Nash, 2005 FCA 386. Click here to read our article on the…
Lipson Now Online
Lipson v. The Queen, 2006 TCC 148, Chief Justice Bowman’s recent GAAR decision, is now available online.
GAAR Redux
In my post yesterday, I should have mentioned that Lipson v. The Queen, 2006 TCC 148, considered a set of transactions with some similarity to those considered by Mr. Justice Little in Overs v. The Queen, 2006 TCC 26, which…
Latest GAAR decision
Two days ago, the Tax Court released the latest decision of Chief Justice Bowman on the general anti-avoidance rule (the GAAR). The case, Lipson v. The Queen, 2006 TCC 148, does not appear to be on-line yet. The case considers…
Reallocation of Partnership Income
Subsection 103(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) is an anti-avoidance rule that permits the Minister to reallocate (among other things) income among the partners of a partnership where the “principal reason” for the allocation agreed upon by the partners…
RRSP Mischief
Here’s a depressing case to start off the New Year and take us into the “RRSP season”: Nunn v. The Queen, 2005 TCC 806. The CRA warning about similar schemes, discussed here and here, was apt but too late for…
Cautionary Tale
Rajah v. The Queen, 2005 TCC 637 is not a case that breaks new ground, legally, but it serves as a useful reminder — expressed with the usual clarity and concision that one finds in Mr Justice Bonner’s decisions — that (1) the key question in any dispute about an assessment of tax is whether it is too high; (2) the taxpayer bears the onus of proving that the assessment is too high; and (3) the taxpayer cannot rely on information (supposedly) obtained from the CRA, especially if it is obtained from a nameless agent contacted through the CRA’s 800 number.