Cédric Renaud-Lafrance

The appellant, a real estate lawyer, received a Requirement to Pay (RTP) from the CRA directing her to remit funds from a client's property sale to satisfy a tax debt.

Believing the RTP only applied to a smaller lien amount which she paid, she disbursed the remaining funds to her client.

The Minister assessed the appellant under subsection 224(4) of the Income Tax Act for the full amount of the RTP ($144,675.79).

The Tax Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was liable to make the payment under the RTP and that her payment of the GST lien did not satisfy the separate Income Tax Act debt specified in the RTP.

The appellant appealed reassessments for her 1997 to 2010 taxation years, which were issued beyond the normal reassessment period.

The Minister added unreported consulting income for 1997-2001 and imputed income from offshore investment funds under section 94.1 for 1998-2010.

The Tax Court found that the appellant's failure to report consulting income was a misrepresentation attributable to neglect, allowing the 1997-2001 reassessments to be opened.

However, the Minister failed to prove that tax avoidance was a main reason for the offshore investments, meaning there was no misrepresentation regarding the imputed income.

Consequently, the 2002-2010 reassessments remained statute-barred and were vacated, while the 1998-2001 reassessments were referred back to exclude the imputed income.

The appellant appealed a reassessment for its 2013 taxation year made outside the normal reassessment period.

The Minister had disallowed maintenance and repair expenses and cumulative eligible capital deductions, and applied gross negligence penalties.

At the hearing, the respondent conceded that an invoice balance of $708,695.65 should be subtracted from the appellant's income.

The Tax Court found that the appellant knowingly made false statements by claiming fictitious expenses and that the Minister was justified in assessing beyond the normal period and imposing gross negligence penalties.

The appeal was allowed in part, without costs, solely to give effect to the respondent's concession.

The appellant, a not-for-profit corporation operating an open-access virtual law library, appealed the Minister's denial of input tax credits (ITCs) for GST paid to third-party service providers.

The Minister argued the appellant provided an exempt supply because the public had free access to the library, meaning no consideration was received.

The appellant argued it received consideration from the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, which paid an annual levy to fund the library.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the Federation's payments constituted consideration for the supply of the virtual library, creating a direct link between the payment and the supply.

As the supply was made for consideration in the course of a commercial activity, it was a taxable supply, entitling the appellant to claim ITCs totaling $745,690.89.