Acinkoj Magok

The appellants appealed reassessments for shareholder benefits, unreported income, disallowed expenses, and gross negligence penalties.

The Tax Court found the books and records were utterly inadequate and the appellants were careless.

The Minister was justified in reassessing beyond the normal period and imposing gross negligence penalties.

However, due to concessions by the Minister and some findings on director's fees, the appeals were allowed in part.

The appellant purchased a newly constructed home and applied for the GST/HST new housing rebate.

The Minister denied the rebate on the basis that the appellant did not pay HST and that the application form was incomplete because it lacked the builder's information and signature.

The Tax Court found that the vendors were builders engaged in an adventure in the nature of trade, making the sale a taxable supply that included HST in the purchase price.

The Court also held that the appellant's inability to obtain the uncooperative vendors' information and signatures did not vitiate her application, applying the maxim that the law does not require the impossible.

The appeal was allowed without costs.

The appellant appealed a GST/HST reassessment for the reporting periods from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2016.

The Minister had assessed additional GST/HST based on unreported sales identified through a bank deposit analysis and a review of the appellant's point-of-sale records.

The appellant argued that the Minister improperly included service estimates and non-business deposits as sales revenue.

The Tax Court found that the appellant's recordkeeping was inadequate and did not support its claims regarding the point-of-sale system.

However, based on concessions made by the Minister regarding certain non-business deposits, the appeal was allowed in part to reduce the GST/HST collectible by $8,902.49.

The Appellant appealed from two director's liability assessments made under section 227.1 of the Income Tax Act for amounts owing by a corporation.

The sole issue was whether the Appellant had ceased to be a director more than two years before the assessments were issued.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the Appellant had validly resigned in writing and left the resignation with the other director prior to 2006.

As this occurred more than two years before the 2015 assessments, the limitation period had expired.

The appeals were allowed and the assessments were vacated.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing his request for taxpayer relief from late filing penalties and arrears interest.

He claimed that his mental illness prevented him from complying with his tax obligations.

The Court found the decision unreasonable because the decision-maker did not adequately explain the reasons for expecting the applicant to implement a compliance mechanism and failed to justify the conclusion in the context of the applicant's evidence regarding his mental illness.

The appellant appealed reassessments for his 2012 and 2013 taxation years regarding the deductibility of expenses incurred for two rental properties.

The Minister disallowed repair expenses for a Vancouver property, arguing they were capital in nature or that the property was not a source of income while vacant during renovations.

The Tax Court held the property remained a source of income and the repairs were current operating expenses, as they were restorative and did not create a new asset.

The Court also allowed various annualized costs for the Vancouver property but disallowed certain home office and other expenses.

For a Phoenix property, the Court allowed a portion of the claimed travel, accommodation, and meal expenses, reducing amounts deemed personal or unreasonable.

The Appellant appealed a GST assessment for the 2011-2016 reporting periods.

The Minister assessed her on the basis that she remained a registrant under a historical GST/HST number assigned to a defunct sole proprietorship, despite her having relocated and changed her business to providing secretarial services.

The Tax Court found that for 2011-2013, she was not a registrant in respect of her new business and qualified as a small supplier, allowing the appeal for those periods.

For 2014-2016, her revenues exceeded the small supplier threshold, making her a deemed registrant, and the appeal for those periods was dismissed.