Devon Peavoy

The appellant appealed reassessments denying a 50% deduction on employee stock option benefits under paragraph 110(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act.

The Minister denied the deduction on the basis that the appellant and the granting companies were not dealing at arm's length immediately after the options were granted.

The Tax Court of Canada found insufficient evidence to establish de jure control by either the appellant or his family trusts.

However, the Court concluded that the appellant had a factual non-arm's length relationship with the companies under paragraph 251(1)(c) due to his significant control and influence as a director, officer, and indirect shareholder.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant participated in a leveraged donation scheme and claimed a charitable donation amount of $39,398 for the 2008 taxation year.

The Minister reassessed the appellant beyond the normal reassessment period, denying the claim on the basis that certain persons were liable to an unpaid penalty under subsection 237.1(7.4) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tax Court found that while the scheme was a tax shelter, the Minister failed to prove that any of the assessed persons committed the prohibited acts of selling, issuing, or accepting consideration in respect of the tax shelter prior to the issuance of an identification number.

Consequently, the Minister was not entitled to reassess beyond the normal period, and the appeal was allowed.

The appellant, a Haudenosaunee Iroquois Confederacy Treaty Indian, appealed reassessments of her 2013 to 2016 taxation years, arguing her employment income from an off-reserve hospital was exempt from tax under paragraph 87(1)(b) of the Indian Act.

The Tax Court of Canada applied the Williams test and found that the connecting factors, particularly the location and nature of her work, weighed in favour of taxation.

The appeals for 2013 to 2016 were dismissed, and appeals for other years were quashed.

The appellant, a food manufacturing business, appealed the Minister's reassessments disallowing its claims for Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) expenditures and corresponding Investment Tax Credits for the 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years.

The appellant had undertaken various projects to develop new or advance pre-existing frozen pie products, facing challenges such as reducing fat and salt contents, extending shelf life without artificial preservatives, and meeting specific customer requirements.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant's work met the five criteria for SR&ED established in Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. v. The Queen.

The Court concluded that the projects posed technological uncertainties that could not be resolved by routine engineering, the appellant formulated hypotheses to address these uncertainties, the procedures accorded with the scientific method, the process resulted in technological advancement (even when unsuccessful), and sufficient records were kept.