Leandra Gupta

The respondent Crown brought a motion to compel the appellant to provide responsive answers to 14 discovery questions and to replace its discovery nominee.

The appellant had reclassified over $180 million in expenses from capital to current, and its initial nominee lacked personal knowledge of the reclassification process.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the motion in part, ordering the appellant to answer several specific questions regarding its internal review and criteria for reclassification.

The Court also ordered the appellant to appoint the employee who led the reclassification initiative as its replacement discovery nominee.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an order to compel the respondent to provide more complete answers to certain discovery examination questions.

The underlying appeal concerned whether disputed expenses should be classified as capital or current.

The respondent had refused to answer several questions, often stating they were taken "under advisement" or that they sought legal argument.

The Court allowed the motion in part, ordering the respondent to further answer questions that sought factual clarification of pleaded assumptions, while upholding refusals for questions that improperly sought legal reasoning or interpretation.

The appellant bank appealed reassessments under the Excise Tax Act for the 2006, 2007, and 2008 reporting periods.

The central issue was whether interchange services supplied by the appellant to a non-resident merchant acquirer were zero-rated or exempt supplies.

The Tax Court of Canada held that the interchange services related to debts arising from the lending of money primarily for use in Canada, making them exempt supplies.

However, the Court allowed the appeals for the 2006 and 2007 periods to vacate the assessed penalties, finding the appellant had exercised due diligence.

The appeal for the 2008 period was dismissed.