Alisa Catharine Apostle

The Appellant appealed reassessments for its 2010 and 2011 taxation years, arguing that certain software development projects qualified as scientific research and experimental development (SR&ED).

The Tax Court of Canada found that the projects involved technological uncertainty that could not be resolved by routine engineering and that the Appellant formulated and tested hypotheses to achieve technological advancements.

The appeals were allowed, and the reassessments were referred back to the Minister to allow the claimed SR&ED expenditures and corresponding investment tax credits.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister of National Revenue denying its application under the Voluntary Disclosures Program (VDP).

The Minister concluded the disclosure was not "voluntary" because prior enforcement actions against the applicant's sole owner and director, who had also failed to file tax returns, were likely to have uncovered the disclosed information regarding the corporation.

The Federal Court found the Minister's decision reasonable, noting that enforcement actions against the owner successfully revealed income links to the corporation, justifying the conclusion that the corporate information would likely have been uncovered.

The appellant appealed reassessments disallowing business losses claimed for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 taxation years.

The losses related to management services provided to an art gallery operated by his spouse.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the activity had a personal element and was not carried on in a sufficiently commercial manner to constitute a source of business income.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicants sought declarations that shares issued to them in corporations created for their children were never validly issued because the shares were allegedly never paid for, and sought rectification of the share registers after CRA reassessments treated them as controlling shareholders who received taxable benefits.

The court declined jurisdiction, holding that the application was in substance an attempt to influence the outcome of a tax dispute that should be determined in the Tax Court of Canada, which was better placed to interpret and apply the relevant corporate law issues in the tax context.

In any event, declaratory relief was refused because there was conflicting evidence on payment, no internal corporate dispute requiring intervention, and potential retroactive disruption to prior corporate acts.

Rectification was also refused because the records accurately reflected the parties' original intention and the requested relief would amount to impermissible retroactive tax planning.

The applicant and its affiliates carried out a series of transactions in December 2007 designed to realize a tax loss to offset unrealized foreign exchange gains in the same taxation year.

The Canada Revenue Agency disallowed the claimed loss on the basis that section 98(5) of the Income Tax Act applied, rendering the transaction a tax-deferred rollover.

The applicant sought court orders to retroactively alter the transaction to achieve its intended tax purpose, relying on rectification and equitable jurisdiction to relieve against mistakes.

The application judge granted the order, but the Supreme Court's decision in Fairmont Hotels restricted rectification to written agreements.

The Court of Appeal held that the court will not exercise its equitable jurisdiction to retroactively alter corporate transactions to achieve tax objectives, whether characterized as rectification or relief from mistake.

The court also rejected rescission as an available remedy, finding it was not a voluntary disposition but a commercial contract, and that rescission is an all-or-nothing remedy that cannot be used for partial unwinding to achieve a specific tax outcome.

This application sought rectification of a corporate resolution declaring a dividend.

Due to a clerical error, the resolution and Canada Revenue Agency election form were incorrectly dated, resulting in a 60% tax liability under the Income Tax Act instead of the intended tax-free capital dividend.

The court granted the rectification, finding a clear and specific intention to achieve a tax-free distribution that was frustrated by a simple mistake in implementation.

The applicant sought an order rectifying a series of corporate transactions carried out in December 2007 to allow it to realize a tax loss of approximately $168 million to offset foreign exchange gains.

The Canada Revenue Agency had reassessed the applicant, disallowing the loss on the basis that the dissolution of a partnership was effected on a tax-deferred rollover basis under s. 98(5) of the Income Tax Act.

The court granted the application, finding that the parties had a continuing specific intention to carry out the transactions to create a tax loss, and that the failure to avoid the application of s. 98(5) was a mistake.

A motion by the applicant to amend its notice of application was dismissed as unnecessary.