Éliane Mandeville

The appellant carried out a corporate reorganization involving the immigration of a US subsidiary to Canada and its subsequent wind-up, realizing a capital loss.

The Minister applied the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) to deny the capital loss carryover for the 2018 taxation year and to reduce the capital loss balance for the 2007 taxation year, arguing the transactions circumvented the dividend stop-loss rules in subsections 93(2) and (2.01) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, finding that the avoidance transactions were abusive as they frustrated the object, spirit, and purpose of the dividend stop-loss rules, which aim to prevent the artificial creation of losses through tax-free dividends.

The appellant brought a motion for the production of documents he considered essential to his appeal of reassessments for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 taxation years.

The appeal concerned whether the reassessments correctly implemented a prior settlement agreement.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the motion in part, ordering the respondent to provide only two specific documents that had already been disclosed, and dismissed the motion with respect to the remaining documents, finding them irrelevant to the current dispute.

The Appellant trust allocated dividends to a beneficiary and deducted the amounts under subsection 104(6) of the Income Tax Act.

The Minister reassessed to deny the deductions, arguing the allocations were invalid and absolutely null because they violated the trust deed and article 1275 of the Civil Code of Québec by effectively making the beneficiary's sons de facto trustees.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the sons did not become de facto trustees and the independent trustees did not delegate their discretionary powers.

The Court also held that even if article 1275 had been violated, the sanction would be relative nullity, which the Minister lacked standing to invoke.

The self-represented taxpayer filed a motion challenging a reassessment that implemented a prior settlement agreement and consent judgment.

The Minister argued that no objection could be filed against such a reassessment.

The Tax Court held that it has jurisdiction to determine whether a reassessment correctly implements a settlement agreement.

The Court ordered the Registry to open a new appeal file, treating the motion materials as a notice of appeal, and granted an extension of time.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a Canada Revenue Agency decision finding him ineligible for the Canada Recovery Benefit.

The reviewing officer determined that the applicant's Airbnb income constituted rental income rather than self-employment income, resulting in a failure to meet the $5,000 minimum income threshold.

The Federal Court held the officer's decision was reasonable based on the record and dismissed the application.

The Attorney General of Canada moved to strike the applicant's application for judicial review of a CRA decision denying his eligibility for the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit (CRCB).

The Federal Court granted the motion, holding that the applicant's notice of application failed to set out a complete and concise statement of grounds as required by Rule 301(e) of the Federal Courts Rules.

The notice consisted of bald statements without material facts, and the applicant's attempt to cure the deficiency with a responding affidavit was rejected.

The appellant estate appealed a reassessment for the 2018 taxation year, arguing that a pension plan payment received more than 36 months after the deceased's death should be taxed at the graduated rates applicable to a "graduated rate estate".

The payment was delayed due to a provincial law reorganizing municipal pension plans.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Income Tax Act strictly limits the graduated rate estate status to 36 months after death, and the Court has no power to make exceptions based on fairness or equity.