Jia Ling

The respondent brought a motion to compel the appellant to answer questions and requests refused or taken under advisement during the examination for discovery of its nominee.

The underlying appeal concerns the denial of non-capital losses arising from a real estate restructuring, which the respondent challenges under the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR).

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the motion in part, ordering the appellant to answer certain questions relevant to its mental processes and purposes in entering the transactions, while dismissing requests that amounted to a fishing expedition.

The request for the nominee to reattend was denied.

The Appellant appealed the Minister's determinations denying her the Canada Child Benefit for the 2019 to 2022 base taxation years.

The Respondent conceded eligibility for the period from March 2021 to August 2022.

For the remaining period from September 2022 to June 2024, the Tax Court found that the Appellant did not reside with the children at least 40% of the time or on an approximately equal basis, as the children primarily resided with their father.

The appeal was allowed in part to reflect the conceded period.

The appellant appealed reassessments disallowing the deduction of advertising and promotion expenses claimed against her employment income for the 2016 and 2017 taxation years.

The expenses related to services allegedly provided by corporations owned by her spouse and daughter.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to provide sufficient credible evidence, such as bank statements or detailed invoices, to prove the expenses were actually incurred.

The Court also drew an adverse inference from the failure of the appellant's spouse and daughter to testify.