Anna Kirk

The appellants appealed a ruling by the Minister of National Revenue that a student intern (Cadet) held insurable employment during his internships on their ships.

The Tax Court of Canada found that although there was no contract of service, the Cadet held employment as a trainee within the meaning of paragraph 6(b) of the Employment Insurance Regulations.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant, a jewelry manufacturer, appealed a reassessment denying a deduction for scientific research and experimental development (SR&ED) expenditures and an investment tax credit for the 2016 taxation year.

The appellant claimed that its projects involving mould design and jewelry finishing involved technological uncertainty.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the problems encountered by the appellant could have been resolved using standard procedures or routine engineering known to competent specialists in the field, and therefore did not constitute SR&ED.

The appellant appealed a determination by the Minister of National Revenue that a worker hired as a concierge was engaged in insurable employment under a contract of service from January 1, 2018, to September 17, 2018.

The Tax Court of Canada reviewed the relationship under the Civil Code of Québec and common law indicia, finding that despite the appellant's intention to create an independent contractor relationship, the objective reality demonstrated subordination, control, provision of tools, and integration into the appellant's business.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Minister's determination that the employment was insurable.

The appellant appealed a reassessment for his 2013 taxation year made beyond the normal reassessment period.

The Minister disallowed employment expenses claimed by the appellant, who had only professional income.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant made a misrepresentation attributable to neglect by failing to verify his tax return and relying entirely on his accountant to claim employment expenses when he was not employed.

The appellant appealed reassessments denying his claims for the Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB) for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 taxation years.

The Minister assumed the appellant was not actively carrying on a business.

The Tax Court of Canada found the appellant to be a credible witness and accepted that he operated a small maintenance and renovation business, primarily for one client, despite a lack of formal books and records.

The appeal was allowed and the matter referred back to the Minister for reassessment on the basis that the appellant was entitled to the WITB.