Hye-Won (Caroline) Ahn

The appellant, a gay single man, claimed the medical expense tax credit (METC) for expenses incurred in 2015 for egg donation and gestational surrogacy services.

The Minister disallowed the claim.

The Tax Court of Canada held that the egg donor and surrogates did not meet the statutory definition of 'patient' under the Income Tax Act, as they were not the appellant's spouse, common-law partner, or dependant.

The Court also found that the denial of the METC did not infringe section 15 of the Charter, as the legislation did not treat the appellant differently from others in 2015.

The appeal was allowed only to the extent of a concession made by the Crown regarding DNA fragmentation expenses.

The Appellant appealed a decision finding she was not engaged in insurable employment with her brother's company from 2012 to 2017.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the Appellant's employment arrangement was discretionary, with inconsistent pay and vacation schedules.

The Court concluded it was reasonable for the Minister to determine that the parties would not have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment if they had been dealing at arm's length.

The appeals were dismissed without costs.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's section 160 appeal, the respondent sought enhanced costs.

The Tax Court of Canada awarded a lump sum of $30,000 in costs to the respondent, noting that the appellant had brought three unsuccessful and meritless motions alleging Charter breaches and a breach of a court order, which significantly and unnecessarily increased the volume and complexity of the work.

The Minister assessed the appellant under section 160 of the Income Tax Act for $138,550, representing an indirect transfer of property from her husband, who had an outstanding tax liability.

The husband transferred funds from his sole proprietorship account to his corporation's account, which then issued payments to a trust to purchase a home in the appellant's name.

The appellant argued she provided consideration through services rendered to the business.

The Tax Court of Canada found that an indirect transfer occurred and that the appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove she provided consideration.

The appeal was denied.