Johanne D'Auray

The respondent brought motions to strike portions of the appellants' notices of appeal that alleged wrongful conduct by CRA officials and breaches of sections 7, 8, and 11(b) of the Charter.

The Tax Court granted the respondent leave to bring the motions despite having already taken steps in the proceedings.

The Court struck the allegations of wrongful conduct and breaches of sections 7 and 11(b), finding that the Court's jurisdiction is limited to the validity of the assessment and that these Charter provisions do not apply to civil tax audits.

The Court declined to strike paragraphs that could support a section 8 Charter argument, but granted the appellants leave to amend their pleadings to provide sufficient material facts.

The appellant appealed the Minister's redeterminations denying her claim for the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) for the 2011 and 2012 taxation years.

The Minister reassessed the appellant's spouse, adding significant unreported business income from his restaurant, which increased the net family income beyond the maximum allowable threshold for the CCTB.

The court found that the spouse had significantly under-reported his income and that the appellant failed to disprove the Minister's reassessments.

The appeals were dismissed without costs.

The appellant appealed reassessments for the 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 taxation years regarding the sale of five houses.

The Minister denied the principal residence exemption, treating the gains as business income, reassessed the 2007-2009 years beyond the normal reassessment period, and imposed gross negligence penalties.

The Tax Court allowed the appeal in part.

The Court held the Minister could not reassess the 2007-2009 years as the appellant did not make a misrepresentation attributable to neglect, carelessness, or wilful default, having relied on his accountant's advice.

However, for the 2011 and 2012 sales, the Court found the appellant's primary or secondary intention was to resell at a profit, making them adventures in the nature of trade taxable as business income.

The Court allowed additional expenses for the 2011 and 2012 properties and waived all gross negligence penalties, finding the appellant's reliance on his accountant was reasonable.

The appellant appealed reassessments for the 2004 to 2008 taxation years, arguing they were inconsistent with a 2017 consent judgment.

The Minister had issued multiple reassessments to correct errors.

The Tax Court found that the most recent reassessments were consistent with the consent judgment, except for a minor $29 error in the 2005 taxation year admitted by the respondent.

The appeal was allowed in part to correct the 2005 reassessment, and the Court recommended the Minister waive the accumulated interest due to the Canada Revenue Agency's repeated errors.

The appellant sold domain names to a related company for $500,000 plus GST and QST.

The purchaser subsequently experienced financial difficulties and filed a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, leaving the majority of the purchase price and taxes unpaid.

The appellant sought to adjust its GST return to claim a refund for the uncollected GST, arguing it was a bad debt under section 231 of the Excise Tax Act, or alternatively, a reduction in consideration under section 232.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that section 231 did not apply because the appellant had not remitted the GST on the supply, and section 232 did not apply because no credit or debit note was issued.

The Court also rejected the argument that subsection 225(1) independently permitted the adjustment.

The appellant appealed reassessments made by the Minister of National Revenue for the 2007, 2008, and 2009 taxation years, which included unreported income and assessed gross negligence penalties.

The appellant argued that the amounts received from a business associate were reimbursements for credit card expenses, not income from his role in a non-profit foundation.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's testimony lacked credibility and was contradicted by documentary evidence.

The Court upheld the reassessments beyond the normal period, the inclusion of the amounts as income from an office, and the gross negligence penalties.

The Appellant's spouse, who had a tax liability, deposited his paycheques into the Appellant's personal bank account because he was unable to open his own account due to criminal charges.

In return, the Appellant paid his credit card bills pursuant to his directions.

The Minister assessed the Appellant under section 160 of the Income Tax Act for the funds transferred.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that there was a legally enforceable contract between the spouses and that the Appellant gave valid consideration equal in value to the property transferred by paying the credit card bills.

Therefore, section 160 did not apply.

The appellant, a residential construction company, failed to report and remit GST on two building sales in its 2011 return.

The Minister imposed a penalty under section 285 of the Excise Tax Act, alleging the omission was made knowingly or in circumstances amounting to gross negligence.

The taxpayer appealed, arguing it had no accounting knowledge and had reasonably relied on a chartered professional accountant and a third-party loan management company to handle its bookkeeping and tax filings.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the taxpayer provided all necessary information to its accountant and did not act with wilful blindness or gross negligence.

The penalty was vacated.