Joanna Hill

The applicant applied for an extension of time to file an appeal regarding Canada Pension Plan assessments for the 2015, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the application.

For 2015, no appealable decision was issued because the initial appeal to the Minister was late.

For 2018, there was no CPP assessment to appeal.

For 2019, the application for an extension of time was filed beyond the strict 180-day statutory deadline.

The appellant appealed a reassessment imposing gross negligence penalties under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act for claiming fictitious business losses in his 2009 taxation year.

The appellant had used the services of Fiscal Arbitrators to claim nearly $400,000 in losses despite never operating a business.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was wilfully blind to the blatant false statements in his return and failed to make proper inquiries despite his education and experience.

The appellant appealed a gross negligence penalty imposed under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act for claiming $320,000 in fictitious business losses in his 2009 income tax return.

The losses were claimed through the Fiscal Arbitrator tax preparation scheme.

Applying the Torres framework, the Tax Court of Canada found the appellant was wilfully blind to the blatant false statements and the magnitude of the resulting tax refund.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed the reassessment of his 2018 taxation year, arguing that the denial of a property transfer tax payment and heating pads as medical or moving expenses violated his equality rights under section 15(1) of the Charter.

The Tax Court of Canada held that the statutory limits on moving expenses and the specific list of eligible medical devices did not constitute discrimination based on disability.

The appeal was allowed in part, on concession by the respondent, to permit the medical expense tax credit for wheelchair gloves.

The appellants appealed redeterminations of their GST credit entitlements following their reconciliation.

The Minister had reduced their credits to nil after they refused to provide the appellant wife's non-resident income for the years they were separated.

The Tax Court held that non-resident income must be included in the net family income calculation for the GST credit.

However, because the appellant provided credible estimates of her non-resident income at the hearing, the appeals were allowed and referred back to the Minister for redetermination based on those amounts.