The House of Commons is now debating Bill C-33 at second reading. You can get the flavour of the debate by reading the speech of Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.), which reads in part:
Get help!
Beth DeMerchant, formerly of Torys LLP, testified earlier this week about her role in not making public non-compete fees paid to Lord Black (among others) in 2000. She is quoted in this morning’s National Post saying violated the most…
Schemes
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).
Partnership reporting changes, again
David Bazar was kind enough to point out that, in fact, the CRA has delayed the implementation of the administrative change noted in my last post. Please see the CRA notice here.
Partnership reporting changes
The Golden Horseshoe Tax Study Group met yesterday. Kathryn Smith pointed out to the group that the CRA has changed its administrative policy on the reporting required of a partnership.
Budget news
The CBC has a good quick summary of the federal budget.
C-28 now law
Bill C-28 (“A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006”) received Royal Assent on February 21 and became law as S.C. 2007, c. 2. The statutue includes the new eligible dividend…
A useful tool
The Web contains many useful tools for lawyers such as the website of the Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII), which provides access to a wealth of statutes and cases. The Web has many other useful tools of course.
Damage control
The Minister of Finance tries to explain his position on income trusts and the problems created by his announcement on Halloween, 2006.
PC trouble
In Morisset c. La Reine, 2006 CCI 483 (French only), the CRA reassessed the taxpayer to include in his income amounts supposedly earned by his “professional corporation”. The taxpayer, at law, was not permitted to share the revenue derived from…