3 total
Taxpayer found to be a builder liable for HST on two newly constructed homes sold as adventures in the nature of trade.
The appellant appealed HST assessments related to two newly constructed homes.
The Minister assessed the appellant on the basis that he was a 'builder' under the Excise Tax Act who constructed the homes as an adventure in the nature of trade.
The appellant argued he built the first home for personal use and the second as a trustee for his mother.
The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, finding that both properties were acquired, redeveloped, and sold as an adventure in the nature of trade.
The Court rejected the appellant's claims of personal use and trust, and found that he was required to remit HST collected in error on the second property despite the purchaser being an HST registrant.
Motion to amend pleadings and re-open evidence granted to allow new argument on purchaser's GST registration.
The appellant brought a motion to amend his notice of appeal and re-open the evidence after the evidentiary portion of the trial had concluded.
The appellant sought to argue that the purchaser of the subject property was a GST registrant, meaning the purchaser, not the appellant, was required to remit the tax.
The Tax Court of Canada granted the motion, finding that while the appellant failed to exercise due diligence in raising the issue earlier, the interests of justice favoured re-opening the case because the issue was discrete, the argument had merit, and prejudice to the respondent could be mitigated by costs and further discovery.
Appeal dismissed; corporate taxpayer failed to substantiate wage payments to shareholders for CEWS eligibility.
The corporate appellant appealed the Minister's determination denying its eligibility for the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) for ten qualifying periods in 2020.
The Minister determined the appellant did not pay eligible remuneration to its two shareholder-employees.
The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to substantiate the specific wage amounts claimed, as the payments made were irregular and more consistent with shareholder advances than wages.
