Jennifer Dell'Aquila

The Appellant purchased an "as-is" house, demolished it, and built a new custom home which he sold almost immediately upon completion.

The Minister of National Revenue assessed the Appellant for GST/HST on the supply of the property for the period ended May 31, 2013, on the basis that he was a builder.

The Appellant argued he bought the home to live in, not to profit.

The Tax Court applied the Happy Valley factors and concluded the new house was constructed in the course of an adventure or concern in the nature of trade, making the Appellant a "builder" under the Excise Tax Act.

The Court also held that the Appellant never occupied the house primarily as a place of residence.

Furthermore, the Court permitted the Minister to raise the general supply rules as an alternative argument to support the assessment, holding that amended section 298(6.1) allowed it.

A failure-to-file penalty was also upheld.

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.

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.

The appellant appealed reassessments for its 2013 and 2014 taxation years, which added unreported sales revenue based on a bank deposit analysis and imposed gross negligence penalties.

The Tax Court found the appellant underreported revenue by failing to convert foreign currency sales and omitting other sales.

The Court upheld the Minister's ability to reassess beyond the normal period and the imposition of gross negligence penalties on the unreported revenue, but adjusted the amounts and vacated penalties on certain disallowed deductions.