In 2005, I wrote a post about the 10-year limitation period for relief applications that was introduced by the 2004 budget, and I noted that the drafting of the limitation period was ambiguous. The Federal Court of Appeal just released a decision resolving that ambiguity in favour of the taxpayer given the purpose and context of the relief provisions: see Bozzer v. The Queen, 2011 FCA 186, rev’g 2010 FC 139.
The Savoy
Savoy v. The Queen, 2011 TCC 35, should be required reading for anyone called on to defend an individual from an assessment for unremitted source deductions.
More tax cases
I presented “Current Tax Cases” at the CRA’s quarterly Tax Practitioner’s Consultation Group meeting at the Royal Botanical Gardens on February 16. Please send an email to me (johnl att simpsonwigle.com) for a copy (our server is acting up and…
VD Case
A corporation withholds tax from a dividend that it pays to a non-resident and then fails to remit the amount withheld. The CRA later sends a letter to a shareholder of a shareholder of the dividend payor asking for information…
Childcare receipts
A casual reading of subsection 63(1) of the Income Tax Act suggests that a taxpayer claiming childcare expenses is required to produce receipts from the person providing the care. The subsection seems to permit the deduction of expenses “the payment of which is proven by filing with the Minister one or more receipts each of which was issued by the payee and contains, where the payee is an individual, that individual’s Social Insurance Number”.
“Received”
In Morrison v. The Queen, 2010 TCC 429 (an informal procedure appeal), the individual taxpayers were employees of a corporation of which they were the controlling shareholders. The corporation purported to pay salary to the taxpayers by remitting amounts on account of source deductions to CRA and crediting the appropriate balance to the shareholders’ loan accounts. The taxpayers, however, didn’t include any amounts in income for the year in which the credits and remittances were made. The CRA reassessed to include all amounts credited and remitted in income; the taxpayers appealed to the Tax Court of Canada.
Antle and Garron
The Federal Court of Appeal has released its reasons for dismissing the appeal of the taxpayer in Antle. See Antle v. The Queen, 2010 FCA 280. The reasons are also now available online in St. Michael Trust Corp. v. The…
T1135
A taxpayer is required to file a form T1135 in respect of foreign property, including foreign securities, even if the securities are held in a Canadian brokerage account. If you fail to file the form in these circumstances, and the…
Marechaux appeal dismissed
Robert Kepes of Morris & Morris LLP reports that the Federal Court of Appeal today dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal in Maréchaux v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 587, a case which I wrote about here. Apparently, the taxpayer’s counsel struggled valiantly, but the Court, after listening to him, took a 15-minute break and then rendered a decision from the bench without hearing from the Justice lawyer.
Sometimes limitation periods matter
I’m often forced to explain to clients that, when it comes to tax debts and assessments, the “usual” limitation periods don’t apply. Mr. Justice Juriansz, in Danso-Coffey v. Ontario, 2010 ONCA 171, wrote that “time limits and limitation periods serve a valuable function in the legal process by promoting finality.” That principle is true for you and me, but the government is special, after all, and so “finality” doesn’t really apply to tax debts and the ability of the government to issue assessments in many cases. The Ontario government, in particular, with all its money and resources, can take its time about collecting debts or issuing assessments, and often does. Browning v. The Queen, 2010 TCC 487, then, is a refreshing reminder that sometimes even the government needs to respect limitation periods.