Jenna Clark

The appellant appealed the reassessment of his 2021 taxation year, arguing that his employment income from the Canada Revenue Agency was incorrectly assessed.

The appellant sought to introduce evidence regarding an employment dispute and unpaid leave, which the court found irrelevant to the factual determination of income received.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to adduce evidence establishing that he received a different amount of employment income than assessed.

The Appellants brought motions to strike portions of the Minister's Replies to their Notices of Appeal, arguing that assumptions regarding family finances and third-party transactions were irrelevant and prejudicial to their GST/HST appeals.

The Respondent brought motions to consolidate the three appeals.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the Appellants' motions, finding that the impugned assumptions were relevant to the Minister's position that the Appellants were engaged in an adventure in the nature of trade and were 'builders' under the Excise Tax Act.

The Court also dismissed the Respondent's motions to consolidate, noting it would prejudice the Appellants and was unnecessary at this stage.

The Appellants brought a motion to strike portions of the Respondent's replies to their notices of appeal.

The impugned paragraphs advanced an alternative argument under subsection 152(9) of the Income Tax Act, alleging the Appellants were required to include foreign accrual property income (FAPI) in their assessments.

The Tax Court of Canada granted the motion, finding it plain and obvious that subsection 152(9) does not permit the Minister to advance an alternative FAPI argument based on entirely new transactions and income earned by foreign affiliates that formed no part of the initial assessment.

The corporate appellant appealed GST/HST reassessments made beyond the normal reassessment period and the imposition of gross negligence penalties.

The Tax Court found that the appellant's reliance on its accounting staff without any oversight constituted neglect or carelessness, justifying the late reassessments.

However, the Minister failed to establish that the appellant's conduct amounted to gross negligence.

The appeal was allowed in part to vacate the penalties, while the reassessments for additional net GST/HST payable were upheld.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal on the basis that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction and a condition precedent was not met.

The appellant sought to appeal the Minister's refusal to extend the time to file a late replacement property election under subsection 220(3.2) of the Income Tax Act.

The Court held that the Minister's decision was discretionary and not an assessment or determination giving rise to appeal rights to the Tax Court.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to object to the original assessment.

The motion to quash was granted.

The respondent brought a motion to compel the appellant to answer undertakings given during an examination for discovery.

The appellant had refused to answer questions regarding the number of rental properties owned and mortgage details for properties held by numbered companies, arguing they were irrelevant as the corporations were not reassessed.

The Tax Court of Canada granted the motion, finding that the undertakings constituted binding promises and that the questions fell within the broad scope of relevance given the pleadings regarding the appellant's history of real estate transactions.

The Respondent brought a motion to compel the self-represented Appellants to answer follow-up questions arising from undertakings given at their examinations for discovery in a GST/HST appeal.

The Appellants had refused to answer the questions using a broad omnibus statement.

The Tax Court of Canada found the questions were proper and relevant to the factual matters in dispute, and ordered the Appellants to answer them.

The Court awarded costs of $500 against each Appellant.

The corporate appellant appealed the Minister's disallowance of scientific research and experimental development (SR&ED) expenditures and investment tax credits for the 2005 to 2009 taxation years.

The appellant claimed that 13 projects involving the processing and butchering of super frozen tuna constituted SR&ED.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, finding that the projects involved routine engineering and trial-and-error methods to solve subjective business problems, rather than addressing objective technological uncertainties.

The court concluded that the activities did not meet the statutory definition of SR&ED.

The Appellant and a friend co-purchased a newly constructed condominium.

The Minister denied the Appellant's claim for a GST/HST New Housing Rebate on the basis that the co-purchasers did not intend to occupy the property as their primary residence and were not the first to reside there.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding credible evidence that the co-purchasers intended to and did reside in the condominium as their primary residence after closing.