Dan Daniels

The Appellant appealed reassessments denying input tax credits for HST paid to employment agencies that provided temporary workers.

The Minister argued the agencies were incapable of providing the services and the Appellant failed to meet documentary requirements.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the agencies did provide the services and the Appellant's records satisfied the documentary requirements under the Excise Tax Act.

The Appellant, a retired judge, appealed a reassessment denying charitable donation tax credits for a claimed $100,000 gift to the Banyan Tree Foundation in 2004.

The Appellant participated in a leveraged donation arrangement, pledging $100,000, paying $11,000 in cash, and borrowing $89,000.

At trial, he conceded the $100,000 claim and sought credits only for the $11,000 cash component.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appellant lacked donative intent.

The Court concluded that the Appellant participated in the program for the significant financial benefits he expected to receive, including a self-funding loan and an addition to his investment portfolio, vitiating any donative intent.

The appellants participated in a leveraged donation program where they pledged a donation amount consisting of cash and a loan from a third-party lender.

They claimed charitable tax credits for the total pledged amount.

The Minister reassessed to deny the credits, arguing the amounts were not valid gifts.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellants lacked donative intent as they received a significant benefit in the form of the loan arrangement.

The court also held that the split-gifting provisions did not apply and that the receipts were spoiled for failing to contain prescribed information.

The appellant, an insurer providing fleet insurance to trucking companies operating in Canada and the US, claimed input tax credits on the basis that portions of its supplies were zero-rated exported financial services.

The Minister denied the ITCs, assessing the supplies as entirely exempt.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, interpreting 'risks' in paragraph 2(d) of Part IX of Schedule VI to the Excise Tax Act as the objects of the insurance (the vehicles), not the perils insured against.

The Court held that apportionment between exempt and zero-rated supplies must occur on an object-by-object basis, and the appellant failed to provide specific evidence regarding individual policies and vehicles to support its global apportionment method.

The applicant corporation sought an order to rectify its corporate records to retroactively declare a tax-free capital dividend.

The sole shareholder had drawn funds from the corporation, which were recorded as shareholder loans and subsequently assessed as personal income by the CRA.

The applicant argued that the intention of a prior rollover agreement was to permit tax-free withdrawals.

The court dismissed the application, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Fairmont Hotels, holding that rectification is not available for retroactive tax planning or to cure a failure to maintain proper corporate records where no specific mechanism was agreed upon and improperly recorded.