Marie-France Dompierre

The appellant transferred fishing licences to his wholly owned corporation and later repurchased the same licences in the same year.

He attempted to use the replacement property rules under subsections 14(6) and 14(7) of the Income Tax Act to defer capital gains.

The Minister reassessed to deny the election and include the capital gain.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the bundle of rights attached to the licences had not changed and constituted the exact same property, which could not qualify as a replacement property under the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 sought enhanced costs on a solicitor-client basis following a successful motion to strike the respondent's reply.

The Tax Court of Canada declined to award solicitor-client costs, finding the respondent's conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

However, considering the volume of work required to address the defective 125-page reply, the Court awarded a lump sum of $10,000 in costs to the appellant, which exceeded the Tariff amount.

The appellant brought a motion to strike the respondent's Reply to the Notice of Appeal in its entirety.

The appellant argued the Reply contained overreaching denials, assumptions of mixed fact and law, conclusions of law, repetitive and colorful language, and improperly pleaded evidence.

The Tax Court of Canada agreed that the Reply contained numerous defects, including the improper pleading of evidence in the schedules and conclusions of law such as 'sham'.

The Court struck the Reply in its entirety but granted the respondent leave to file a fresh reply.

The Respondent brought motions for leave to amend the replies in two appeals.

The Appellant did not oppose the motion in the second appeal.

In the first appeal, the Respondent sought to add arguments relating to a tax shelter, window dressing, and the GAAR.

The Court denied leave to add the tax shelter and window dressing arguments because the Respondent had previously represented to the Court that it would not rely on the tax shelter argument, had missed previous opportunities to plead these arguments, and the proposed amendments were not timely.

The Court granted leave to add the GAAR arguments and other minor revisions.