Jean Murray

The appellant appealed an assessment under the Income Tax Act for an excess TFSA amount and a late-filing penalty.

The appellant had withdrawn funds from her TFSA and re-contributed them in the same year without sufficient contribution room, triggering the excess amount tax.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had an excess TFSA amount and that the Court lacked jurisdiction to cancel the tax or penalty on fairness grounds.

The appellant appealed the Minister's denial of foreign tax credits for her 2021 to 2024 taxation years.

The 2021 appeal was quashed for failure to file a valid notice of objection.

For 2022 to 2024, the Tax Court found the appellant provided sufficient evidence that she paid withholding taxes to Germany and Switzerland on dividend income, despite not having foreign tax assessments.

The appeals for 2022, 2023, and 2024 were allowed and referred back to the Minister for reassessment to grant the foreign tax credits.

The appellants appealed GST/HST reassessments related to the self-supply of a newly constructed residence.

The Minister determined they were builders who made a taxable self-supply and did not qualify for the personal use exemption.

The Tax Court found that the appellants' pattern of buying, building, and selling properties constituted an adventure in the nature of trade, making them builders.

The Court also found the primary purpose of the property was inventory, not residency, precluding the personal use exemption.

The fair market value was determined to be $915,000 based on the respondent's expert appraisal.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant applied under section 58 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules to determine when he last ceased to be a director of a corporation for the purposes of the limitation period in subsection 323(5) of the Excise Tax Act.

The corporation had been involuntarily dissolved and later revived.

The Court held that the revival of a corporation under the Canada Business Corporations Act does not retroactively or prospectively reinstate its former directors.

Therefore, the appellant ceased to be a director upon the corporation's dissolution, meaning the Minister's assessment was issued beyond the two-year limitation period.

The appellant corporation appealed a penalty imposed under subsection 227(9) of the Income Tax Act for late remittances of payroll source deductions.

The Minister had reallocated the remuneration between the appellant's two employees based on bank deposits, resulting in the penalty.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the doctrine of constructive receipt applied, as the second employee had authorized her remuneration to be deposited into the first employee's account.

The Court concluded the Minister's reallocation was incorrect and the penalty was not validly imposed.

The appeal was allowed.

The appellant cleaning company appealed the Minister's decisions classifying eight cleaners as employees for CPP and EI purposes.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeals, finding that the cleaners were independent contractors.

The decisive factors were that the cleaners could set their own hours, hire their own helpers, and provide replacements without the appellant's approval.