Gaston Jorré

The appellant, a non-resident of Canada, appealed assessments for non-resident withholding tax on his pension and RRSP income for the 2011 to 2015 taxation years.

He filed his tax returns late, missing the six-month deadline to elect under section 217 of the Income Tax Act, which would have allowed him to avoid the additional withholding tax.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the assessments were correct in law because the election was not made within the statutory time limit, despite the hardship caused to the appellant.

The appellant converted a duplex, where he lived in one unit and rented the other, into a single-family principal residence in 2017.

This triggered a deemed disposition for a change of use.

The Minister denied the appellant's election to defer the capital gain under subsection 45(3) of the Income Tax Act, arguing the election only applied to a complete change of use of the entire property.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that a textual, contextual, and purposive interpretation of section 45 permitted the election for a partial change of use.

The Appellant appealed a determination by the Minister of National Revenue that the Intervenor was in insurable employment.

The issue was whether the Intervenor and the Appellant were dealing at arm's length under paragraph 5(2)(i) of the Employment Insurance Act.

The Court found that the Intervenor, a shareholder and senior employee, participated in collective decision-making regarding remuneration and accepted terms not typical of an arm's length relationship, such as varying remuneration based on business performance and automatic termination upon ceasing to be a shareholder.

The Court concluded they were not dealing at arm's length, allowed the appeal, and varied the Minister's decision to reflect that the Intervenor was not in insurable employment.

The Respondent brought motions for leave to file Amended Replies to the Notices of Appeal in two appeals concerning whether certain projects qualified as scientific research and experimental development under the Income Tax Act.

The Appellant opposed the amendments, arguing they would deprive it of the right to rely on the specific approach taken by the auditors.

The Tax Court of Canada granted the motions, finding that the proposed amendments added factual allegations in support of the existing basis of assessment and did not constitute a new basis of assessment.

The Court held that the amendments would assist in determining the real questions in controversy without causing non-compensable prejudice to the Appellant.

The appellant appealed a GST reassessment, arguing it was entitled to make an election under section 156(2) of the Excise Tax Act to treat supplies between associated companies as made for no consideration.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the companies were not 'closely related' within the meaning of section 128 because they were controlled by an individual rather than a corporation.

The Respondent filed a motion in writing to quash the self-represented appellant's employment insurance appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tax Court of Canada held that it is generally inappropriate to proceed by a motion in writing in employment insurance appeals where the appellant is unrepresented.

The Court ordered the motion to be set down for an oral hearing.

The appellant filed both an appeal and a time extension application to object, alleging she had been unable to obtain copies of the assessments resulting in a $17,000 balance owing.

The Court, on its own motion, ordered the respondent to provide its position on the time extension and to produce copies of the relevant assessments and contact information records.

The respondent filed a motion to quash the appeal on jurisdictional grounds and requested that the motion be dealt with in writing.

The appellant, represented by an agent under the informal procedure, opposed the motion.

The Tax Court of Canada held that dealing with a motion to quash in writing is generally inappropriate under the informal procedure, which is designed to be accessible and understandable for appellants.

The Court ordered the motion to be set down for an oral hearing.

The appellant appealed the assessment of his 2020 taxation year, arguing that the Minister was statute-barred from reducing his net capital loss balance to account for a 1994 bankruptcy discharge because previous Notices of Assessment had included the pre-bankruptcy losses.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a statement of a loss balance in a Notice of Assessment is not a binding determination under subsection 152(1.3) of the Income Tax Act, and the Minister is permitted to correct errors from statute-barred years when assessing a current year.

The appellant brought a motion to consolidate two appeals pursuant to Rule 26 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure).

One appeal concerned the deductibility of expenses, while the other concerned withholding tax and related penalties.

The Tax Court of Canada granted the motion, finding that the identity of the parties and the substantial overlap in evidence justified consolidation to promote efficiency without causing prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal for the 2007 taxation year.

The Minister did not oppose the application.

However, the Court noted that the proposed notice of appeal relied on 'natural person' arguments and appeared to lack reasonable grounds.

The Court ordered the application to be set down for a hearing to determine if the statutory conditions were met.

The Appellant withdrew its EI and CPP appeals, resulting in their dismissal.

The Appellant subsequently brought a motion to set aside the dismissals, arguing it only learned after withdrawing the appeals that withholdings and interest were still owing.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the motion, finding that the Appellant failed to establish that the fact that amounts were still owing could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence prior to withdrawing the appeals.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeals for 27 taxation years between 1989 and 2019.

The Tax Court of Canada granted the motion, finding that the appeals for various years were invalid due to res judicata, failure to file notices of objection, filing out of time, or lack of an assessment.

The appeals for the 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2009 taxation years were allowed to proceed.

The appellant claimed an investment tax credit for expenditures related to two projects, arguing they were scientific research and experimental development activities.

The Canada Revenue Agency denied the credit.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the projects involved technological uncertainties that could not be resolved through routine engineering or standard procedures, and that the scientific method was not systematically applied.

The appellants appealed reassessments and redeterminations for the 2005, 2006, and 2007 taxation years.

The first appellant challenged the computation of capital cost allowance for a vehicle and penalties under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act following a prior judgment.

The second appellant challenged the computation of the Canada Child Tax Benefit, arguing shared custody was not considered.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the Minister correctly computed the depreciation and minimum penalties, and properly accounted for shared custody.

The appeals were dismissed without costs.

The Appellant appealed from two director's liability assessments made under section 227.1 of the Income Tax Act for amounts owing by a corporation.

The sole issue was whether the Appellant had ceased to be a director more than two years before the assessments were issued.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the Appellant had validly resigned in writing and left the resignation with the other director prior to 2006.

As this occurred more than two years before the 2015 assessments, the limitation period had expired.

The appeals were allowed and the assessments were vacated.

The Appellant appealed an assessment of Part X.1 tax and penalties for RRSP over-contributions in the 2015 taxation year.

The Appellant argued that a $165,000 termination payment received in 2014 constituted "earned income," which would have provided sufficient contribution room.

The Tax Court of Canada held that the termination payment was a "retiring allowance" and not income from employment, meaning it did not qualify as earned income.

However, the Court found errors in the Minister's calculation of the over-contribution tax, noting the contribution was made in February rather than January and that additional contribution room was available.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the matter was referred back to the Minister to reduce the tax from $1,106.28 to $682.33 and the penalty from $188.07 to $116.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Objection for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years after receiving amended T4s from her employer.

However, the Canada Revenue Agency never actually reassessed the applicant based on the amended T4s.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the application, finding that since no reassessment was issued, there was no dispute to review, making an objection pointless and an extension of time not just and equitable.

The respondent applied for an extension of time to file her reply to the notice of appeal.

The reply was completed before the deadline but filed five days late due to a misunderstanding.

The appellants objected to the extension.

The Tax Court of Canada granted the application, finding that the delay was minimal, there was a continuing intention to defend the assessment, there was no prejudice to the appellants, and a reasonable explanation existed.

The Appellants sought costs of $30,000 plus disbursements following their substantial success in an Informal Procedure appeal.

The Respondent argued for Tariff costs of $1,185.

The Court noted that while the Informal Procedure Rules allow for a fixed sum in lieu of taxed costs, the Tariff must still be considered.

Taking into account the Tariff and the fact that argument and costs submissions were conducted in writing, the Court awarded a lump sum of $6,000 for fees and disbursements, to be divided equally between the two Appellants ($3,000 each).