Andrew Miller

The appellant appealed reassessments disallowing input tax credits (ITCs) and assessing gross negligence penalties under the Excise Tax Act.

The Tax Court found that while the appellant did acquire sewing services and the transactions were not a sham, the appellant's inadequate and inconsistent bookkeeping failed to meet the mandatory documentary requirements for claiming ITCs.

However, the Court found the errors were due to negligence rather than gross negligence or knowing misrepresentation.

The appeals were allowed in part to vacate the penalties, but the ITCs remained disallowed.

The appellant appealed a derivative assessment under section 323 of the Excise Tax Act for unremitted GST, interest, and penalties of a corporation of which he was the sole director.

The appellant challenged the underlying assessments against the corporation, arguing they were sent to the wrong address, failed to account for input tax credits, and incorrectly calculated net tax.

He also argued the Minister failed to meet the collection preconditions and should have assessed a de facto director instead.

The Tax Court of Canada found the preconditions were met and the appellant was the sole de jure director.

The Court rejected the input tax credit claim due to inadequate documentation.

However, the Court found the Minister incorrectly included unremitted GST from a prior period in the March 31, 2013 reporting period.

The appeal was allowed in part to reduce the assessment by $5,693.79.

The appellant appealed an assessment disallowing his application for a GST/HST New Residential Rental Property Rebate.

The Minister disallowed the application because it was filed beyond the two-year limit under the Excise Tax Act.

The appellant argued that subsection 296(2.1) compelled the Minister to accept the late application.

The Tax Court held that subsection 296(2.1) did not apply because the assessment under appeal was not an assessment of net tax or an amount payable under Part IX, but rather a simple denial of the rebate.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent moved to strike portions of the appellant's Fresh Amended Notice of Appeal on the basis that they disclosed no reasonable grounds for appeal.

The appellant conceded that paragraphs relating to procedural fairness should be struck.

The Court struck the procedural fairness paragraphs and a request for relief beyond the Court's jurisdiction, but declined to strike factual allegations regarding the CERS audit, finding they could be relevant to defending against gross negligence penalties.

The respondent (Crown) brought a motion to amend its Reply to the Notice of Appeal in an informal procedure tax appeal concerning the denial of business losses.

The proposed amendments sought to clarify the issues, add a subsidiary argument under section 67 of the Income Tax Act, withdraw an admission, and add new factual assumptions.

The Tax Court of Canada granted the motion in part.

The Court allowed the amendments that clarified the issues and added the subsidiary argument, finding they helped determine the real questions in controversy without causing irreparable prejudice.

However, the Court refused the withdrawal of the admission as it served no useful purpose, and refused the addition of new factual assumptions because the respondent failed to provide evidence that the Minister actually relied on those assumptions when reassessing.

Despite the respondent's partial success, the Court awarded lump sum costs of $1,000 to the appellant, noting that the respondent's initial, inappropriate proposed amendments (which alleged the appellant's counsel was involved in a scheme) triggered unnecessary procedural maneuvers and delayed the hearing.

The respondent Minister brought a motion to amend the Reply to the Notice of Appeal in three related appeals to remove certain factual allegations regarding the conduct of other taxpayers and the appellants' counsel.

The appellants opposed the motion, arguing the Minister's conduct should remain in evidence.

The Tax Court granted the motion, noting that the Minister's conduct is irrelevant to the validity of the assessments.

The Court awarded costs of $1,000 to each appellant due to the delay caused by the respondent's initial inclusion of the irrelevant allegations.

The appellant appealed a reassessment of his 2022 taxation year, arguing he was entitled to a tuition tax credit based on the total amount of tuition paid in 2022 to a foreign university, which included an overpayment credited to 2023.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a textual, contextual, and purposive interpretation of paragraph 118.5(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act limits the tuition tax credit to the amount of tuition owing for the specific taxation year.