Arnaud Prud’Homme

The appellants, an individual and his wholly-owned telecommunications corporation, appealed income tax reassessments for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The Minister had disallowed various rental and business expenses, including interest, maintenance, home office, and vehicle expenses, and had assessed shareholder benefits.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeals in part, finding that the individual was entitled to deduct certain interest and home office expenses, and that the vehicle was used 80% for business purposes.

The Court also reduced the shareholder benefits and allowed the corporation to deduct management fees and a portion of the vehicle expenses.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal of a 2016 taxation year reassessment on the basis that no valid notice of objection was filed.

The appellant argued the reassessment was issued within the normal reassessment period because he did not receive the original notice of assessment or it was sent to the wrong address.

The Tax Court of Canada found the appellant's evidence regarding the mailing address lacked credibility and concluded the reassessment was issued under subsection 152(4.2) of the Income Tax Act, which precludes a valid notice of objection under subsection 165(1.2).

The motion was granted and the appeal quashed.

The appellant brought a motion to strike out certain paragraphs of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal in two separate appeals concerning assessments for director liability under the Excise Tax Act.

The Minister alleged the appellant was a de facto director and participated in a scheme to avoid tax liabilities.

The Tax Court of Canada granted the motion in part, striking out paragraphs that contained irrelevant facts and conclusions of law, but leaving allegations concerning the alleged scheme and third parties to be determined by the trial judge.