3 total
Appeal dismissed; deemed value of gifted shares was nil because consideration was a non-qualifying security.
The appellant estate appealed a reassessment denying a charitable donation tax credit for the 2012 taxation year.
The deceased had implemented a tax plan transferring shares to a private foundation, which then disposed of them to the deceased's company in exchange for a promissory note.
The Tax Court of Canada held that the promissory note was a non-qualifying security and the only consideration received at the time of disposition.
Consequently, under paragraph 118.1(13)(c) of the Income Tax Act, the deemed value of the gift was nil.
The appeal was dismissed.
Non-resident's salary continuation after termination is not deemed Canadian employment income under paragraph 115(2)(c.1).
The appellant, a non-resident of Canada and former general manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs, was terminated without cause and received salary continuation in 2015 and 2016.
The Minister reassessed the appellant, asserting that paragraph 115(2)(c.1) of the Income Tax Act deemed him to be employed in Canada, making the entire salary continuation taxable in Canada, subject to a discretionary proration.
The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that paragraph 115(2)(c.1) did not apply to the salary continuation under a single employment contract where services were no longer performed in Canada.
The appellant's Canadian tax liability was properly based on the actual days spent performing residual duties in Canada in 2015 and 2016.
Costs awarded at 50% of actual fees; Tariff held to be merely a default provision.
The applicant was wholly successful in its appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, which awarded costs in the Tax Court of Canada to the applicant.
On a motion to determine those costs, the applicant sought a lump sum award of approximately $450,000, representing 75% of its counsel fees, while the respondent argued for the Tariff amount of $6,500.
The court applied the factors in Rule 147(3) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules, noting the large amount in issue, the importance and complexity of the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) issues, and the volume of work.
The court rejected the respondent's argument that a principled reason is required to depart from the Tariff, holding that the Tariff is merely a default.
The court awarded the applicant $300,000 for the appeal (50% of actual fees) plus disbursements, and additional costs for the motion itself at 50% of actual fees.
