Marie-Aimée Cantin

The corporate appellant appealed reassessments denying investment tax credits for scientific research and experimental development (SR&ED) for its 2006 to 2009 taxation years.

The Minister reassessed beyond the normal reassessment period and imposed gross negligence penalties, alleging the appellant submitted plagiarized documentation with its claims.

The Tax Court found the appellant made misrepresentations attributable to neglect by submitting plagiarized technical reports, justifying the statute-barred reassessments and penalties.

However, the Court allowed the appeals in part, finding that two projects in 2007 and 2008 did qualify as SR&ED because they involved technological uncertainties and advancements.

The appeals of the individual appellants regarding section 160 assessments were dismissed as the corporate appellant's underlying tax debt was confirmed for the 2006 and 2009 taxation years.

The appellant appealed assessments for the 2002 to 2009 taxation years involving shareholder benefits, unreported income, and gross negligence penalties.

The Tax Court dismissed the appeals for 2002 and 2009, quashed the appeal for 2007, and allowed the appeals for 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2008, referring them back for reassessment.

The Court adjusted the shareholder loan account balance, reduced the unreported income and shareholder benefit amounts for 2006, and quashed the gross negligence penalties for 2006.

The appellants, non-resident professional baseball players, appealed reassessments regarding the calculation of their Canadian-source employment income.

The issue was whether employer contributions to a retirement compensation arrangement (RCA) should be excluded from income before or after allocating the income between Canada and the United States based on duty days.

The Tax Court of Canada held that the RCA contributions must be excluded from the portion of income earned in Canada after the gross compensation is allocated between the jurisdictions, allowing the appeals and referring the reassessments back to the Minister.

The appellant requested a late adjournment of a three-day trial because their expert witness was out of the country on holiday.

The Court found that the appellant's counsel had failed to inform the expert of the trial dates fixed nine months earlier.

The Court awarded the respondent $7,500 in costs thrown away due to the adjournment.

Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 152, the Court ordered the appellant's counsel to personally indemnify the appellant for the full amount of the costs award, as the costs were incurred due to counsel's error.

The appellant appealed notices of determination for its 2007 taxation year, in which the Minister applied the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) to reduce the adjusted cost base of shares, add a capital gain, and disallow a capital loss.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that while the series of transactions resulted in a tax benefit and constituted an avoidance transaction, the Minister failed to demonstrate that the transactions were abusive of the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

The appellant appealed a reassessment for the 2018 taxation year that added net rental income from a property in France and denied a foreign tax credit.

The appellant argued he was entitled to the credit because he paid taxes to France in 2018, although those taxes were for the 2017 taxation year.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that under subsection 126(1) of the Income Tax Act, a foreign tax credit is only available if the foreign tax was paid on the same income that is subject to Canadian tax for that year.

Since the appellant received a tax credit in France that cancelled his 2018 tax liability there, no double taxation occurred for the 2018 income.