Gaston Jorré

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 58 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) to determine a question of mixed law and fact prior to the hearing of its GST/HST appeal.

The proposed question was whether 'substantially all' of the expenditures in issue were made in the course of its commercial activities within the meaning of section 141 of the Excise Tax Act.

The Tax Court dismissed the motion, finding that the determination would require a rich evidentiary background similar to a full trial and would not result in a substantially shorter hearing or a substantial saving of costs.

The appellant appealed the Minister's denial of a GST/HST New Housing Rebate for a condominium.

The respondent argued the appellant purchased the unit from an assignor rather than the builder, and failed to meet other statutory conditions.

The court found that the builder accepted the assignment, making the appellant the purchaser directly from the builder.

The court also found the appellant acquired the unit for use as his primary place of residence and met all other conditions under section 254(2) of the Excise Tax Act.

The appeal was allowed and the matter referred back to the Minister for reassessment.

The applicant applied for an extension of time to file a Notice of Objection to a Notice of Assessment denying a new housing rebate.

The Minister argued the application was out of time, relying on the presumption of mailing for the Notice of Assessment dated December 15, 2016.

Applying the DaSilva framework, the court found the Minister failed to prove the Notice of Assessment was mailed on that date, as the affidavit evidence relied on hearsay without necessity.

The court concluded the applicant first received the Notice of Assessment in March 2018, making the extension application timely.

The application was granted.

The appellant appealed assessments for unremitted income tax source deductions and GST under the director's liability provisions of the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act.

The sole issue was whether the appellant had effectively resigned as a director more than two years prior to the assessments.

The appellant argued he resigned by handing a letter to his father, who managed the business.

The court held that under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, the resignation of a first director is not effective until a successor is elected or appointed.

Because no successor was appointed, and the deeming provisions for a managing person did not apply, the appellant remained a director.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed reassessments of her 2010 and 2011 taxation years, in which the Minister disallowed substantial business expenses and assessed gross negligence penalties.

The Tax Court of Canada found the appellant's evidence lacking in credibility, noting claims for non-existent wages, altered receipts, and personal meals.

The court upheld the disallowance of the expenses, including home office and meal claims, as the appellant failed to demonstrate they were valid business expenditures.

The gross negligence penalties were also upheld, as the court inferred the appellant was wilfully blind or knowingly made false statements regarding her inflated expense claims.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants claimed business losses from a barbecue and catering venture for the 2008 to 2014 taxation years.

The Minister denied the losses, arguing there was no source of income, reassessed statute-barred years, and imposed gross negligence penalties.

The Tax Court found that the appellants' activities were initially a personal hobby and skill development, but evolved into a business by 2012.

The court held the Minister could not reopen the statute-barred 2008-2011 years as there was no misrepresentation, and vacated all gross negligence penalties.

For 2012-2014, the court allowed the business losses but reduced the claimed expenses as they were unreasonably high.