Monica Biringer

The appellant, a fraternal benefit society and life insurer, appealed an assessment for its 2014 taxation year regarding the taxation of investment income.

The Minister reassessed the appellant to include World Surplus assets in its Canadian Investment Fund (CIF) and to exclude amounts in respect of its Accident and Sickness (A&S) Business.

The Tax Court allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant correctly included A&S Business assets and liabilities in computing its CIF, correctly designated investment property in respect of its A&S Business, and correctly excluded certain World Surplus assets that were not used or held in the course of carrying on an insurance business.

The Respondent brought a motion to quash the Appellant's appeals for the 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years, and to strike portions of the Notice of Appeal.

The Tax Court of Canada granted the motion to quash, finding that the reassessments for 2013, 2015, and 2016 were issued under the taxpayer relief provisions of subsection 152(4.2) of the Income Tax Act, which precludes objections and appeals.

For 2014, the Appellant failed to file a timely notice of objection.

The Court also granted the motion to strike in part, removing evidence, complaints about CRA conduct, and invalid Charter arguments from the pleadings, with leave to amend.

The appellant appealed a reassessment of his 2006 taxation year, challenging the disallowance of a charitable donation tax credit for a purported in-kind donation of pharmaceuticals through a tax shelter arrangement.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the appellant did not acquire ownership of the pharmaceuticals and therefore could not have made a valid gift.

Furthermore, the receipt provided by the charity was invalid as it did not indicate the place of issuance.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an assessment for director's liability under the Excise Tax Act for unremitted GST/HST of a corporation.

The appellant argued a due diligence defence based on his diminished mental health during the relevant period.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part, finding the appellant not liable for periods after he ceased to be a director, but liable for the earlier periods because he failed to take positive steps to prevent the failure to remit despite his mental health challenges.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion to compel the respondent's nominee to answer questions refused during an oral examination for discovery and questions arising from answers to undertakings.

The underlying appeal concerned disallowed claims for partnership losses and carrying charges related to a tax shelter.

The Tax Court of Canada reviewed 29 specific questions or items.

The Court found that most of the questions were improper as they sought third-party taxpayer information protected by section 241 of the Income Tax Act, asked for the respondent's legal theory or evidence rather than facts, or related to the Canada Revenue Agency's internal processes rather than the correctness of the assessment.

The motion was allowed with respect to only one item, requiring the respondent to provide a legible transcription of handwritten notes.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant, a special effects company, appealed the Minister's decisions that certain workers were engaged in insurable and pensionable employment.

The Tax Court allowed the appeals, finding that the workers were independent contractors based on the common intention of the parties and the Wiebe Door factors, including the workers' freedom to accept or reject projects and work for other shops.