Christophe Tassé-Breault

The appellant appealed reassessments for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years made using the net worth method, which added unreported income and imposed gross negligence penalties.

The reassessments were issued beyond the normal reassessment period.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeals for 2013 and 2014 in part, reducing the unreported income and corresponding penalties, finding the appellant had provided credible evidence of non-taxable sources for some funds but failed to explain the entire discrepancy.

The Court allowed the appeal for 2015 in full, vacating the reassessment as the Minister failed to prove misrepresentation attributable to neglect, carelessness, or wilful default to justify reassessing beyond the normal period.

The appellant appealed seeking a tax refund of $2,032 for the 2016 taxation year, relying on a notice of collection and a letter refusing to reassess.

The respondent moved to quash the appeal on the basis that no valid assessment was appealed and the Court lacked jurisdiction.

The appellant brought a cross-motion to allow the appeal because the respondent failed to file a reply in time.

The Tax Court granted the respondent's motion and quashed the appeal, finding that a notice of collection and a refusal to reassess are not assessments that can be appealed.

The appellant's motion was dismissed as moot and unfounded.

The appellant appealed an assessment under section 160 of the Income Tax Act holding him jointly and severally liable for the tax debt of a trust.

The trust had emigrated to Barbados, triggering a deemed year end and disposition of property under subsection 128.1(4).

The trust subsequently distributed capital to the appellant.

The Tax Court of Canada held that subsection 128.1(4) applied to create a deemed year end, taking precedence over subsection 94(1).

Furthermore, the Court found that the appellant gave no consideration for the capital distributions, rejecting the argument that subsection 107(2) deemed consideration to have been paid.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant filed a motion under Rule 172 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) to set aside a 2018 judgment that had dismissed its appeal for delay under Rule 64.

The applicant argued that newly discovered documents obtained through an access to information request showed the Canada Revenue Agency had evidence supporting the applicant's tax position, alleging fraud.

The Tax Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant's grounds related only to the merits of the underlying tax appeal, not to the circumstances of the delay that led to the 2018 dismissal.

The Court concluded there was no evidence of fraud or newly discovered facts material to the Rule 64 judgment.