6 total
Judicial review dismissed; CRA reasonably concluded intergovernmental MOU did not apply to taxpayer's inconsistent provincial filings.
The applicant corporation sought judicial review of a decision by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), acting as agent for the Minister of Finance for Ontario, refusing to take further action under an intergovernmental Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to resolve a double taxation issue with Revenu Québec.
The double taxation arose because the applicant filed inconsistent tax returns in Ontario and Quebec for the 2011 taxation year.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the CRA's interpretation of the MOU—that it only applies when a tax authority proposes to change a taxpayer's allocation formula, not when the taxpayer files inconsistently—was reasonable.
The court also found no breach of procedural fairness.
Tax assessment appeals dismissed; court found appellant collected provincial sales tax but mistakenly remitted it federally.
Enterprise Rent-A-Car appealed four tax assessments totaling approximately $1.5 million for unremitted Ontario retail sales tax (RST) on insurance premiums.
Enterprise brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing it had collected and remitted federal Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) to the Canada Revenue Agency, not RST.
The court evaluated the credibility of Enterprise's affiant and found that Enterprise had in fact collected RST but mistakenly remitted it to the federal government.
The court granted boomerang summary judgment in favour of the Minister and dismissed the appeals.
Summary judgment granted declaring Minister's tax reassessment for excess refund statute-barred under the Corporations Tax Act.
The moving party, Ford, sought summary judgment on its appeal of a tax reassessment by the Minister of Finance.
The Minister had issued a Notice of Assessment in 2017 seeking repayment of an excess refund of over $6.2 million from the 1999 taxation year.
Ford argued the reassessment was statute-barred under subsection 82(11) of the Corporations Tax Act.
The court agreed, finding that unlike other provisions, subsection 82(11) did not include the phrase 'at any time,' meaning the normal assessment period applied.
The court granted summary judgment in favour of Ford, declaring the reassessment statute-barred.
A federal tax waiver form is deemed prescribed for Ontario tax purposes under the provincial deeming provision.
The appellant trust appealed from a summary judgment motion dismissal regarding a reassessment of provincial income tax under the Ontario Income Tax Act for the 2007 taxation year.
The central issue was whether waiver form T2029, a prescribed form under the federal Income Tax Act, operated to waive the limitation period for reassessing Ontario income tax.
The appellant argued that T2029 had never been prescribed for Ontario purposes and that government advice calling into question its prescription status prevented the waiver from operating.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, holding that section 48(15) of the Ontario Act deems any form purporting to be prescribed by the Provincial Minister to be a prescribed form unless called into question by the Provincial Minister.
The court found that T2029 clearly purports to be a prescribed form and had not been called into question by the appropriate authority.
Summary judgment Motion dismissed
The Aubrey Dan Family Trust (ADFT) brought a summary judgment motion to allow its income tax appeal for the 2007 taxation year and vacate a reassessment issued by the Minister of Finance.
The motion focused on whether the reassessment was issued outside the statutory limitation period and, if so, whether the limitation period was properly waived.
The court found that the original notice of assessment triggered the normal reassessment period, which expired before the reassessment was issued.
However, the court also found that the T2029 waiver form signed by ADFT was valid under the Ontario Income Tax Act, deeming it a prescribed form and thus effectively waiving the limitation period.
Consequently, ADFT's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.
Interest on specialty debt held to be property income and not taxable corporate income.
A corporation incorporated in the British Virgin Islands appealed Ontario tax reassessments requiring it to include interest received from a related Canadian company as taxable corporate income under the Corporations Tax Act.
The interest arose from specialty debt instruments issued as part of a corporate tax planning structure intended to replace retained earnings with intercompany borrowings.
The court considered whether the interest constituted income from a business carried on in Canada, whether the Ontario General Anti-Avoidance Rule applied, and whether the income triggered corporate minimum tax.
Relying on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Inter-Leasing, the court held the interest was income from property rather than business income and therefore not taxable under the applicable provisions.
The GAAR did not apply and the corporate minimum tax regime was also inapplicable.
