Sam Perlmutter

The parties brought a joint motion in writing to set aside a consent judgment previously issued by the Court and replace it with an amended consent judgment.

The Court dismissed the motion, finding that it was functus officio.

The Court held that the slip rule under section 172 of the Rules did not apply because the judgment accurately reflected the original consent filed, and any error was made by the parties rather than the Court.

The Appellant, a medical doctor, claimed farming losses from her organic beef farm for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The Minister reassessed to restrict the losses under subsection 31(1) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the Appellant's chief source of income was her medical practice and that farming was a subordinate source of income.

The appeal was dismissed, and the farming losses were restricted to $17,500 per year.

The appellant appealed the denial of a GST/HST New Housing Rebate for a property he purchased.

The Tax Court found that while the appellant had the intention to use the property as his primary place of residence when he signed the agreement of purchase and sale, he did not sufficiently occupy the property to meet the requirements of paragraph 254(2)(g) of the Excise Tax Act.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that his inability to secure a traditional mortgage constituted a frustrating event that prevented occupancy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Minister of National Revenue determined that a post-doctoral fellow was an employee of the University of New Brunswick for the purposes of the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Pension Plan.

The University appealed.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeals, finding that the dominant characteristic of the payments made to the fellow was for the furtherance of her education and research, not as compensation for services provided to the University.

Therefore, the fellow was not an employee.

The Appellant built a long-term care facility and claimed input tax credits during construction.

Upon occupancy, it reported a deemed self-supply under subsection 191(3) of the Excise Tax Act.

The Minister assessed the Appellant, applying section 191.1 to increase the GST/HST collectible to equal the input tax credits claimed, on the basis that the Appellant received government funding.

The Appellant appealed, arguing that the funding was for health care services, not accommodation.

The Tax Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the facts were identical to a previous decision (High-Crest) and that the government funding test was met because a portion of the payments was for making residential units available to seniors.