Andrea Lee Jackett

The applicant corporation sought judicial review of a decision by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), acting as agent for the Minister of Finance for Ontario, refusing to take further action under an intergovernmental Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to resolve a double taxation issue with Revenu Québec.

The double taxation arose because the applicant filed inconsistent tax returns in Ontario and Quebec for the 2011 taxation year.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the CRA's interpretation of the MOU—that it only applies when a tax authority proposes to change a taxpayer's allocation formula, not when the taxpayer files inconsistently—was reasonable.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness.

The appellant bank sought to deduct interest paid to US tax authorities on overdue US income tax liabilities related to its US branch operations.

The Minister disallowed the deduction.

On a Rule 58 motion, the Tax Court of Canada held that the interest was not deductible under section 9 of the Income Tax Act and was precluded by paragraph 18(1)(a).

Applying the Roenisch principle, the Court found that the interest expense was incurred as a consequence of earning income, not for the purpose of earning income.

The appellant and respondent jointly brought a motion under Rule 58 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) to determine a question of mixed fact and law before the hearing of the appeals.

The question asks whether interest payable by the appellant to foreign tax authorities in the United States in respect of overdue tax liabilities is deductible under section 9 of the Income Tax Act and not precluded by subsection 18(1).

The Court granted the motion, finding that the question is one of mixed fact and law, is raised in the pleadings, and its determination may dispose of all or part of the proceeding or result in a substantial saving of costs.

The appellant appealed the Minister's redeterminations denying his claim for the Canada Child Benefit as a shared-custody parent from July 2015 to June 2020.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the appellant met the 40% threshold for shared custody for 45 of the 60 months in issue, rejecting the Minister's method of averaging the time over a multi-year period.

The appeal was allowed and the redeterminations were referred back to the Minister for reconsideration.

The appellants, directors of a restaurant corporation, appealed assessments for unremitted GST/HST under subsection 323(1) of the Excise Tax Act.

They argued the underlying tax was paid and that the Crown failed to prove execution of the certificate was returned unsatisfied.

The Tax Court of Canada found the underlying tax liability was established and that documentary evidence, including a levy report and writ of seizure, proved execution was returned unsatisfied.

The appeals were dismissed.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion to compel the respondent's nominee to answer questions refused during an oral examination for discovery and questions arising from answers to undertakings.

The underlying appeal concerned disallowed claims for partnership losses and carrying charges related to a tax shelter.

The Tax Court of Canada reviewed 29 specific questions or items.

The Court found that most of the questions were improper as they sought third-party taxpayer information protected by section 241 of the Income Tax Act, asked for the respondent's legal theory or evidence rather than facts, or related to the Canada Revenue Agency's internal processes rather than the correctness of the assessment.

The motion was allowed with respect to only one item, requiring the respondent to provide a legible transcription of handwritten notes.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The Appellant appealed an assessment of Part X.1 tax and penalties for RRSP over-contributions in the 2015 taxation year.

The Appellant argued that a $165,000 termination payment received in 2014 constituted "earned income," which would have provided sufficient contribution room.

The Tax Court of Canada held that the termination payment was a "retiring allowance" and not income from employment, meaning it did not qualify as earned income.

However, the Court found errors in the Minister's calculation of the over-contribution tax, noting the contribution was made in February rather than January and that additional contribution room was available.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the matter was referred back to the Minister to reduce the tax from $1,106.28 to $682.33 and the penalty from $188.07 to $116.

The Minister of National Revenue moved to appeal a prothonotary's order refusing to strike a judicial review application filed by Iris Technologies Inc. The Federal Court found no error in the prothonotary's determination that the application raised administrative law issues regarding procedural fairness, which were within the Court's jurisdiction, and was not plainly bereft of any chance of success.

The Minister appealed a Prothonotary's decision dismissing a motion to strike a judicial review application by an employer regarding the denial of CEWS benefits.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Prothonotary's refusal to admit an affidavit under s. 244(9) of the ITA, nor any error of law in finding the application challenged discretionary administrative conduct rather than an issue falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Court.

The appellant trust appealed from a summary judgment motion dismissal regarding a reassessment of provincial income tax under the Ontario Income Tax Act for the 2007 taxation year.

The central issue was whether waiver form T2029, a prescribed form under the federal Income Tax Act, operated to waive the limitation period for reassessing Ontario income tax.

The appellant argued that T2029 had never been prescribed for Ontario purposes and that government advice calling into question its prescription status prevented the waiver from operating.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, holding that section 48(15) of the Ontario Act deems any form purporting to be prescribed by the Provincial Minister to be a prescribed form unless called into question by the Provincial Minister.

The court found that T2029 clearly purports to be a prescribed form and had not been called into question by the appropriate authority.

The Aubrey Dan Family Trust (ADFT) brought a summary judgment motion to allow its income tax appeal for the 2007 taxation year and vacate a reassessment issued by the Minister of Finance.

The motion focused on whether the reassessment was issued outside the statutory limitation period and, if so, whether the limitation period was properly waived.

The court found that the original notice of assessment triggered the normal reassessment period, which expired before the reassessment was issued.

However, the court also found that the T2029 waiver form signed by ADFT was valid under the Ontario Income Tax Act, deeming it a prescribed form and thus effectively waiving the limitation period.

Consequently, ADFT's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

This statutory appeal concerned whether writing services incurred during the final script stage of a television production were eligible expenditures under the Ontario Production Services Tax Credit.

Applying the modern rule of statutory interpretation, the court held that the word “from” in s. 92(5.3)(d) of the Taxation Act, 2007 was inclusive in context and captured costs incurred during the final script stage itself, rather than only costs incurred after that stage.

The court found that the final script stage, as reflected in the agreed facts, was integrally connected to production rather than merely preproduction development.

The Minister’s reassessment excluding those costs was set aside and referred back for reassessment.

No costs were awarded.