Anne Elizabeth Morin

The appellant participated in the Global Learning and Gifting Initiative (GLGI) tax shelter.

The Tax Court issued a show cause order requiring the appellant to explain why the GLGI portion of his appeal should not be struck for abuse of process.

The Court found the appellant raised no new facts or arguments to overcome the established lack of donative intent in the GLGI scheme.

The Court bifurcated the 2006 taxation year appeal and struck the GLGI portion without leave to amend, awarding costs to the respondent.

The respondent brought a motion to strike the appellant's Fresh As Amended Notice of Appeal.

The Court had previously struck the original Notice of Appeal with leave to amend and provided specific instructions on what not to include.

The appellant ignored these instructions and included irrelevant information such as disclosure requests, collections actions, settlement offers, and CRA conduct.

The Court struck the Fresh As Amended Notice of Appeal for disclosing no reasonable grounds for appeal but granted the appellant a final opportunity to file a Further Fresh As Amended Notice of Appeal in compliance with the Court's instructions.

The Appellant appealed a reassessment denying a deduction and investment tax credit for scientific research and experimental development (SRED) expenditures related to a software development project.

The Minister conceded a portion of the expenditures at the hearing.

The remaining issue was whether the payroll expenditures for a specific subproject qualified as SRED.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the Appellant faced a technological uncertainty in combining four software tools to achieve adequate performance, which could not be resolved by routine engineering.

The Court concluded that the Appellant's activities met the five criteria for SRED established in Northwest Hydraulic.

The appeal was allowed with costs, and the reassessment was referred back to the Minister to allow the additional SRED expenditures.

The appellant appealed reassessments for the 2012 and 2013 taxation years regarding rental income and capital gains from the sale of two rental properties.

The issues included the denial of a $154,000 interest deduction, the denial of a non-capital loss carryback, an increase in taxable capital gains by $39,000, the denial of $25,000 to $30,000 in maintenance expenses from 2005 and 2006, and a late filing penalty of nearly $2,000.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence to support the interest deduction, the loss carryback, or the addition of past expenses to the adjusted cost base.

The Court also upheld the capital gains assessments and the late filing penalty, as the appellant failed to establish due diligence.

The appellant converted a duplex, where he lived in one unit and rented the other, into a single-family principal residence in 2017.

This triggered a deemed disposition for a change of use.

The Minister denied the appellant's election to defer the capital gain under subsection 45(3) of the Income Tax Act, arguing the election only applied to a complete change of use of the entire property.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that a textual, contextual, and purposive interpretation of section 45 permitted the election for a partial change of use.