David Douglas Robertson

The respondent brought a motion under Rule 58 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) for an order determining whether subsection 191(1) of the Excise Tax Act applied to the self-supply of a residential complex.

The appellant opposed the motion as premature because discovery had not yet occurred and material facts regarding the appellant's intention to sell the units were in dispute.

The Court dismissed the motion, finding that it was premature prior to discovery and that the disputed material facts were too closely linked to the remaining issues to be determined at trial.

Following a referral back from the Federal Court of Appeal, the Tax Court of Canada reconsidered the appellant's appeal regarding input tax credits for fleet insurance policies.

The Court of Appeal had clarified the interpretation of zero-rated supplies under the Excise Tax Act.

However, the Tax Court found that the appellant had only provided global evidence at trial, lacking specific evidence on individual policies.

Without this evidence, the Court could not determine the extent to which any given policy was zero-rated.

Consequently, the appeals of the reassessments were dismissed.

The appellant, a wholesaler, sold tobacco products delivered to the Six Nations Reserve.

The Minister reassessed the appellant for uncollected GST, alleging the sales were to non-status Indians.

The appellant argued the sales were to status Indians and exempt under section 87 of the Indian Act.

The Tax Court found that the status Indians were the recipients of the supplies, making the sales exempt from GST.

The appeals were allowed and the reassessments vacated.

The Appellant operated a casino and received revenue in connection with white label ATMs located on its premises.

The Minister reassessed the Appellant for uncollected GST on this revenue, arguing the Appellant made taxable supplies.

The Appellant argued it made exempt supplies of financial services.

The Tax Court found that the Appellant made a single compound supply of a licence to place and operate ATMs, which is a taxable supply of property.

However, the appeals were allowed in part to give effect to a concession by the Minister regarding net tax erroneously reassessed on cash call fees.

Jayco, Inc. appealed the dismissal of its action against the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.

Jayco sought recovery of legal costs and interest incurred while successfully contesting a GST/HST assessment.

The claims were based on theories of common law indemnity (as a statutory agent under the Excise Tax Act) and private law duty of care (negligence) owed by the CRA during an audit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that no common law right to indemnity exists for statutory agents in this context, nor does the CRA owe a private law duty of care to taxpayers during administrative audits, distinguishing such audits from criminal investigations.

The plaintiff, a U.S. business registered to collect HST, successfully appealed a $14 million CRA tax assessment but incurred over $1.4 million in interest and professional fees.

The plaintiff sued the government for indemnity and negligence, alleging the CRA acted in bad faith during the audit.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motion, finding that neither the common law nor the Excise Tax Act provides a right to indemnity for such costs, and that the CRA does not owe a private law duty of care to taxpayers or tax collection agents during an audit.

The appellant, an insurer providing fleet insurance to trucking companies operating in Canada and the US, claimed input tax credits on the basis that portions of its supplies were zero-rated exported financial services.

The Minister denied the ITCs, assessing the supplies as entirely exempt.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, interpreting 'risks' in paragraph 2(d) of Part IX of Schedule VI to the Excise Tax Act as the objects of the insurance (the vehicles), not the perils insured against.

The Court held that apportionment between exempt and zero-rated supplies must occur on an object-by-object basis, and the appellant failed to provide specific evidence regarding individual policies and vehicles to support its global apportionment method.

The appellant employer sought to claim input tax credits (ITCs) for GST/HST paid on paramedical services (acupuncture, massage therapy, naturopathy, and homeopathy) provided to its employees and their families under a self-funded health benefits plan.

The Minister disallowed the ITCs.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the employer did not acquire the services itself.

Furthermore, the deeming provisions under section 175(1) of the Excise Tax Act did not apply because the health care services were intended for the exclusive personal use of the employees and their families, and were not consumed or used in relation to the employer's commercial activities.

The applicant, an Ontario corporation, sought declarations that certain provisions of British Columbia's Provincial Sales Tax Act were unconstitutional and did not have legal force in Ontario.

The respondent British Columbia Crown brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The court granted the motion, finding that interprovincial Crown immunity applied and that the British Columbia Crown could only be sued in the courts of British Columbia pursuant to the British Columbia Crown Proceeding Act.