John C. Yuan

The Respondent brought a motion to amend its Reply to advance an alternative argument based on the thin capitalization rules under subsection 18(4) of the Income Tax Act to support the disallowance of interest expense previously reassessed under paragraph 20(1)(c).

The Tax Court allowed the motion, finding that the 2016 amendments to subsection 152(9) of the Act permit the Minister to advance an alternative basis or argument even if it relies on different facts or a different source, provided the total amount of tax assessed does not increase.

The Court found no non-compensable prejudice to the Appellant.

The appellant appealed the Minister's denial of a GST/HST New Housing Rebate for an owner-built home.

The Minister denied the $16,080 rebate solely on the basis that the application was filed late.

The Tax Court found that the appellant's accountant mailed the application on December 31, 2021, before the January 13, 2022 deadline, despite the CRA receiving it on January 31, 2022.

The appeal was allowed and the matter referred back to the Minister for reassessment to allow the rebate.

The Respondent brought a motion to quash the Appellant's appeal of reassessments for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 taxation years.

The Respondent argued that because the Appellant had previously filed and then discontinued a late-filed appeal concerning the same reassessments, subsection 16.2(2) of the Tax Court of Canada Act deemed the appeal dismissed and extinguished the Appellant's right to appeal.

The Court dismissed the motion, finding that because the previous appeal was late-filed without an extension, the Court lacked jurisdiction over it, and therefore its discontinuance could not extinguish the Appellant's substantive right to dispute the reassessments in a properly instituted subsequent appeal.

The Appellant appealed a Minister's reconsideration decision regarding his Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) benefits following his retirement.

The Social Security Tribunal referred the matter to the Tax Court of Canada to determine whether the Appellant's lump sum withdrawals from his Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF) constituted 'pension income' under the Old Age Security Act's option method rules.

The Court held that the RRIF withdrawals were not pension income and therefore did not need to be included in the Appellant's estimated income for the relevant payment periods.

The appellant appealed a reassessment of his 2006 taxation year that denied a charitable donation tax credit for a $6,000 donation to Mega Church.

The Minister reassessed beyond the normal reassessment period on the basis of misrepresentation.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the appellant made a misrepresentation attributable to neglect, carelessness, or wilful default regarding the donation amount.

Furthermore, the donation receipt did not comply with the Income Tax Regulations.

The appeal was dismissed.