Réal Favreau

The appellant corporation appealed a reassessment made beyond the normal reassessment period, which added $920,700 in unreported dividends to its income.

The appellant argued that the omission was due to a software error and the inattention of its external accountant, and that it had exercised due diligence.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the external accountant was negligent in failing to verify the tax return and that this negligence was attributable to the appellant.

Furthermore, the appellant's officers failed to exercise due diligence by not reviewing the tax return before it was filed.

The appellant appealed a reassessment imposing a gross negligence penalty under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act for failing to report a taxable capital gain from the sale of a condominium unit in his 2013 income tax return.

The appellant argued the omission was a simple error based on a misunderstanding of the principal residence exemption.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant, an experienced businessman who engaged in sophisticated real estate transactions, demonstrated wilful blindness and gross negligence by failing to consult his professional advisors regarding the tax consequences of the sale.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Minister of Employment and Social Development regarding the calculation of her Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) for the July 2017 to June 2018 payment period.

The appellant argued that sums withdrawn from her late spouse's Registered Retirement Income Funds (RRIFs) should not be included in her income.

The Tax Court of Canada held that under the Old Age Security Act, the appellant's estimated income for 2017 must include her income from the base calendar year, calculated as though she had no pension income.

The Minister correctly calculated her estimated income, which exceeded the maximum threshold for GIS eligibility.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Minister reassessed the appellant, a mutual reinsurance corporation, to disallow the deduction of non-capital losses following its acquisition of all shares of a trust company (ProCap).

The Minister argued that the acquisition triggered the loss restriction rules under subsection 111(5) of the Income Tax Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the relieving provision in paragraph 256(7)(d) applied to deem that control was not acquired, because the mutual general insurance associations (MGIAs) that controlled ProCap before the transaction also controlled the appellant after the transaction.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the MGIAs formed a group of persons that exercised de jure control over both entities through their control of the federation that appointed the appellant's board of directors.

As all conditions of paragraph 256(7)(d) were met, control was deemed not to have been acquired, and the losses were deductible.