For the purposes of section 160 of the Income Tax Act, it does not matter whether the transferor or transferee knows that the transferor owes tax at the time of the transfer. What they intend to accomplish by making the transfer is irrelevant as well. In both cases, section 160 will apply, if its other conditions are satisfied. But what about the case where the transferor purports to transfer property to the transferee without her knowledge or consent. In Leclair v Canada, 2011 TCC 323 the court held that section 160 did not apply in those circumstances.
Measuring Employment Benefits
If you teach at a private school, and the school offers your children discounted tuition as part of your compensation package, what is the value of the benefit that must be included in your income for the purposes of the…
Gifts and Family Law
When the patriarch or matriarch of a family decides to implement a freeze it is quite common for him or her to insist that the gift of the growth shares be excluded from net family property for the purposes of the Family Law Act (Ontario). Are such exclusions effective? McNamee v McNamee, 2011 ONCA 533, illustrates well why lawyers must emphasize to clients that the answer is still a definite “maybe”.
Buckingham
For those of us who defend director liability cases, R v Buckingham, 2011 FCA 142, is a must-read.
T1 Short
A friend of mine was going through his father’s papers and found some old tax returns. He passed one along to me—a 1948 T1 Short—with his permission to post it here, which I am doing with names and addresses redacted.…
Kiddie tax
In Jeannotte v R, 2011 TCC 247, the taxpayer’s representative tried to argue that the Court should make an exception to the kiddie tax rules on income from a trust that was set up, not to avoid tax, but to…
The Gambler
The upsurge in interest in all things poker-related has sort of passed me by, like a lot of other trends and fashions. But, because I am a tax nerd, I have asked myself why it is that those who make a living playing poker, or who make some money at it anyway, don’t seem to pay tax on their winnings? I suspect that the answer can be found in Cohen v R, 2011 TCC 262.
Privilege and a claim for legal expenses
In RICHARD A. KANAN CORPORATION v R, 2011 TCC 211, an informal procedure case, the Court was asked “how much information can the Minister, or the Court, require a taxpayer to produce in support of his or her expenses, if that information is subject to solicitor-client privilege?” (¶ 1).
Garron leave granted
The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal in St. Michael Trust Corp. v. The Queen, 2010 FCA 309, aff’g Garron Family Trust v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 450.
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.