Jesse Epp-Fransen

The Minister reassessed the appellant for unreported GST/HST, assuming that cash deposits into the sole shareholder's personal bank account were unreported corporate sales.

The appellant appealed, arguing the deposits were repayments of two informal personal loans made by the shareholder to friends.

The Tax Court of Canada found the shareholder and his witnesses credible, concluding on a balance of probabilities that the deposits were non-taxable loan repayments.

The appeal was allowed and the reassessments referred back to the Minister for reconsideration.

The applicant accounting firm sought judicial review of a Requirement to provide information (RFI) issued by the Minister of National Revenue under subsection 231.2(1) of the Income Tax Act.

The RFI was issued in the course of an audit of three of the firm's clients and requested information regarding the clients and "entities owned, operated, controlled or otherwise connected" to them.

The applicant argued the Minister was required to seek judicial authorization under subsections 231.2(2) and (3) because the RFI sought information about unnamed persons.

The Court dismissed the application, finding the Minister reasonably concluded the information was required to verify the compliance of the named taxpayers under audit, not to investigate the unnamed entities.

The Court also held the Minister reasonably addressed the RFI to the partnership and that the RFI was sufficiently clear.

The appellant, Stonehouse Group Inc., appealed a motion judge's decision denying enhanced refund interest on an overpayment of provincial tax.

The overpayment resulted from a disallowed loss carry back under the Corporations Tax Act, which was later reversed.

The motion judge interpreted s. 79(7) of the Act as precluding enhanced interest for loss carry back refunds.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge's interpretation incorrect.

The Court held that such an interpretation would unfairly deny any refund interest, contrary to the legislative intent of the interest payment provisions, which aimed to balance the rights of government and taxpayers and provide enhanced interest for compelled overpayments arising from disputes.

The moving party, Ford, sought summary judgment on its appeal of a tax reassessment by the Minister of Finance.

The Minister had issued a Notice of Assessment in 2017 seeking repayment of an excess refund of over $6.2 million from the 1999 taxation year.

Ford argued the reassessment was statute-barred under subsection 82(11) of the Corporations Tax Act.

The court agreed, finding that unlike other provisions, subsection 82(11) did not include the phrase 'at any time,' meaning the normal assessment period applied.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Ford, declaring the reassessment statute-barred.

The appellant corporation claimed a tax refund resulting from carrying back non-capital losses to a previous taxation year.

After a successful objection to a reassessment, the appellant received the refund but was denied the enhanced rate of interest under s. 82(5) of the Corporations Tax Act.

The appellant brought a Rule 21 motion to determine whether 'tax payable' under s. 82(5) must take into account a deduction from a loss carried back.

The court answered the question in the negative, finding that the specific deeming provision in s. 79(7) applies to the calculation of interest under s. 82(5), meaning tax payable is calculated without regard to subsequent year tax losses.

The appeal was effectively dismissed in favour of the respondent Crown.