Louise R. Summerhill

The appeals concerned the tax consequences of dividends paid by Husky Energy Inc. to two non-resident corporations under securities lending arrangements.

The Minister assessed Husky for failing to withhold Part XIII tax at the 15% rate under the Canada-Barbados Income Tax Convention, and assessed the successor corporations of the Barbados entities for the shortfall.

The Tax Court held that the Luxembourg entities were not the beneficial owners of the dividends under the Canada-Luxembourg Income Tax Convention because they were contractually obligated to pay the dividend amounts to the Barbados entities.

Consequently, Husky was liable for Part XIII tax at the 25% rate.

However, because the Minister only assessed the Barbados successor corporations and not the Luxembourg entities, the appeals of the Barbados successor corporations were allowed and their assessments vacated.

Husky's appeal was dismissed.

The Appellant appealed reassessments denying input tax credits (ITCs) and imposing gross negligence penalties for GST/HST paid to independent contractors.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that while the Appellant was not entitled to ITCs for payments to unregistered subcontractors due to missing registration numbers, it was entitled to have the amounts applied as a rebate to reduce its net tax.

The Court also found the 2010-2012 reassessments were statute-barred as there was no misrepresentation attributable to neglect, carelessness, or wilful default, and cancelled the section 285 penalties for 2009 as the Appellant did not act knowingly or with gross negligence.

The corporate appellant purchased a residential condominium unit for rental purposes but mistakenly applied for the new housing rebate instead of the new residential rental property rebate.

Following the tragic death of the appellant's principal, the error was discovered, but the correct rebate application was filed after the statutory deadline.

The Minister denied the rebate due to late filing.

The Tax Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to extend the filing deadline under subsection 281(1) of the Excise Tax Act, and that the offset and refund provisions in subsections 296(2.1) and 296(3.1) did not apply because the assessment under appeal merely denied the rebate and did not assess net tax or an overdue amount.

The Minister of Finance appealed a decision granting the University of Waterloo a retail sales tax rebate for the construction of a student residence.

The University claimed the rebate as a charitable organization.

The Court of Appeal held that while the University is a charitable organization, the applicable regulations explicitly exclude buildings or structures that are a university from the rebate.

The Court found that a student residence is an integral part of the university's institutional framework.

The appeal was allowed, and the University was found ineligible for the rebate.