Nandhini Padmanathan

The Appellant purchased an "as-is" house, demolished it, and built a new custom home which he sold almost immediately upon completion.

The Minister of National Revenue assessed the Appellant for GST/HST on the supply of the property for the period ended May 31, 2013, on the basis that he was a builder.

The Appellant argued he bought the home to live in, not to profit.

The Tax Court applied the Happy Valley factors and concluded the new house was constructed in the course of an adventure or concern in the nature of trade, making the Appellant a "builder" under the Excise Tax Act.

The Court also held that the Appellant never occupied the house primarily as a place of residence.

Furthermore, the Court permitted the Minister to raise the general supply rules as an alternative argument to support the assessment, holding that amended section 298(6.1) allowed it.

A failure-to-file penalty was also upheld.

The appellant filed a motion seeking an order to discontinue collection actions, return garnished funds, and provide accurate records regarding his GST/HST appeal.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested remedies, as such jurisdiction is exclusively conferred on the Federal Court under section 18 of the Federal Courts Act.

The appellant appealed reassessments disallowing rental losses claimed for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 taxation years.

The appellant had rented a property to his mother at below-market rates while undertaking extensive renovations.

The Tax Court of Canada applied the Stewart test and concluded the arrangement was a personal endeavour rather than a commercial venture undertaken in pursuit of profit.

As there was no source of income, the expenses were not deductible.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a judgment allowing the appeals only to the extent conceded by the respondent, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought 60% of solicitor-client costs, while the appellant proposed a one-dollar award.

The Tax Court of Canada awarded costs to the respondent based on Tariff B, noting the appellant's conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings but recognizing that costs had already been ordered at several prior delay points.