Matthew Evan Porter Williams

The appellant, a non-resident trust with a resident contributor in Quebec, was deemed resident in Canada under the Income Tax Act and deemed resident in Quebec under the Quebec Taxation Act.

The Minister assessed a federal surtax and denied a Quebec abatement on the basis that the appellant did not factually reside in Quebec on the last day of the taxation year as required by Regulation 2601(1).

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the deeming provision in the provincial legislation could not be used to satisfy the factual residency requirement in the federal regulation.

The appellant corporation was continued into the British Virgin Islands, thereby ceasing to be a Canadian-controlled private corporation (CCPC) but remaining a resident of Canada.

Shortly thereafter, it sold shares and realized a capital gain.

The Minister reassessed the appellant under the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR), arguing that the continuance was an abusive avoidance transaction designed to avoid the refundable tax on CCPC investment income under section 123.3 and to claim the general rate reduction under section 123.4.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that while the transactions were avoidance transactions that resulted in a tax benefit, they were not abusive.

The Court held that the Act contains distinct taxing regimes for CCPCs and non-CCPCs, and Parliament intended to allow corporations to move between these regimes.

The appellant's choice to be taxed as a non-CCPC, with its associated benefits and detriments, did not frustrate the object, spirit, and purpose of the relevant provisions.

The Appellant appealed a reassessment that included approximately $10.1 million in its taxable income under subsection 103(1) of the Income Tax Act.

The income was realized by a partnership on the sale of condominium units.

The partnership had allocated 95% of its income to a loss company that joined the partnership just before its year-end.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the allocation to the loss company was unreasonable and that the Minister's allocation of the vast majority of the profit to the Appellant, the only partner who actively participated in the project, was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

This appeal concerned whether taxes collected by Enterprise Rent-A-Car on insurance products were Retail Sales Tax (RST) or Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) for assessment purposes.

Enterprise had collected and remitted these taxes as HST to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

The Minister of Finance assessed Enterprise for RST, arguing Enterprise had erroneously remitted RST as HST.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by focusing on Enterprise's belief about the tax collected, rather than the factual question of what tax was actually collected.

The Court concluded that Enterprise had, in fact, collected HST, based on its invoicing practices and remittances.

As the Minister's assessments were based on "tax collected" under the Retail Sales Tax Act, and Enterprise had collected HST, the assessments had no legal basis.

The appeal was allowed, and the Minister's assessments were set aside.

A Luxembourg corporation created as a tax conduit sold shares in its Canadian subsidiary for approximately $680 million, realizing a capital gain in excess of $380 million, and claimed an exemption from Canadian income tax under the Canada-Luxembourg tax treaty's business property exemption for capital gains on shares deriving value principally from immovable property used in a business.

The Minister denied the treaty exemption and argued the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) applied because the respondent lacked genuine economic connections to Luxembourg.

The majority held that the Minister failed to discharge the burden of proving abusive tax avoidance, finding that the provisions of the Treaty operated as intended and that Canada had deliberately chosen not to include anti-conduit provisions in the Treaty.

The dissent would have allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent's patent lack of economic connection to Luxembourg frustrated the underlying rationale of the Treaty's allocation of taxing rights.

The Appellants, executives of a wealth management firm, transferred common shares to family trusts shortly before the firm's initial public offering (IPO).

They reported the disposition based on a historical valuation formula.

The Minister reassessed them beyond the normal reassessment period, alleging a misrepresentation of the shares' fair market value due to neglect or carelessness.

The Tax Court found that the impending IPO significantly increased the shares' value and that the Appellants were negligent in failing to consider this or seek independent valuation.

The appeals were allowed only to the extent of the Minister's concession at trial regarding the fair market value.

The appellants sought return of withholding amounts remitted on capital gains from share dispositions, arguing the trusts were resident in Barbados under the Canada-Barbados treaty.

The respondent maintained the trusts were resident in Canada because central management and control was exercised in Canada by the principal beneficiaries.

The Court held trust residence is determined by where the trust's real business is carried on, applying the central management and control approach used for corporations.

On the factual findings, the trustee's role was largely administrative and effective control occurred in Canada.

The appeals were dismissed with costs.

The appellant obtained import permits from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to import wheat.

The permits were revoked while the cargo was en route, and a new permit with different conditions was issued, causing the appellant to incur additional costs.

The appellant brought an action for damages in the Federal Court without first seeking judicial review of the licensing decisions.

The Crown successfully moved to strike the claim on the basis that judicial review was a prerequisite.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, applying its companion decision in TeleZone, holding that the Federal Court has concurrent jurisdiction over claims for damages against the Crown and that a prior successful judicial review application is not required.