Canada v. Barrett, 2012 FCA 33, is an interesting companion to Madison v R, 2012 FCA 80 (discussed here). The upshot of Barrett is that the CRA need not undertake reasonable collection efforts against a corporation before assessing one of…
No fairness for you
In Gallant v R, 2012 TCC 119, the taxpayer filed returns for his 2006 and 2007 taxation years and claimed tuition tax credits, which he calculated in accordance with Schedule 11 to the T1. Unfortunately, Schedule 11 did not get…
Settlement
Taylor v R, 2012 FCA 148, is an interesting case on the enforceability of a settlement or whether the settlement prevented the taxpayer from appealing the reassessments in question to the Tax Court.
Reason and the T1135?
The Tax Court has vacated penalties for failing to file a T1135 on time for a year where tax was otherwise not payable. See Douglas v R, 2012 TCC 73, a decision of Justice Woods under the informal procedure.
Savoy Now Somewhat Shabby
I wrote here about Savoy v R, 2011 TCC 35. The Federal Court of Appeal recently concluded that Savoy was wrongly decided on the question of what the Minister must do to satisfy the requirements of subsection 227.1(2) where a…
Involuntary VD
Livaditis v Canada Revenue Agency, 2012 FCA 55, is an interesting case on voluntary disclosures. The cases reminds us that the CRA gets to decide when a disclosure is voluntary, and the courts will not interfere with such a decision…
ABIL
Jamie Golombek has written an interesting piece on a taxpayer who tried to claim an ABIL and was met with the usual CRA skepticism. The issue in dispute in the Tax Court appeal eventually resolved itself into whether a return…
Garron dismissed
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal in the Garron case: see Fundy Settlement v Canada, 2012 SCC 14, which I wrote about here.
A victim of fraud
I found it impossible not to feel sorry for Mr Ruff, a lawyer who paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to a team of fraudsters: see Ruff v R, 2012 TCC 105. Naturally, the CRA disallowed his attempt to deduct the losses as business expenses. The Tax Court agreed with the Minister’s position.
Natural person ‘arguments’
Yet another ‘tax protester’ has been convicted of evasion in R v Porisky & Gould, 2012 BCSC 67. The judge described the natural person ‘argument’ as “a failed attempt at word magic validity” and “legal numerology”. That’s exactly right.