Susan Wong

The appellant corporation appealed the Minister's assessments for unremitted Canada Pension Plan (CPP) contributions for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 taxation years.

The Minister assessed the appellant based on pensionable earnings paid to its two shareholders.

The appellant argued the amounts were expense reimbursements and non-pensionable dividends.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to maintain adequate books and records to support its claims.

The court concluded the appellant did not rebut the Minister's assumptions of fact regarding the nature of the payments.

The appellant appealed a reassessment of her 2012 taxation year that included unreported income of $27,497 and levied a penalty under subsection 163(1) of the Income Tax Act for repeated failure to report income.

The unreported income primarily consisted of a payment received from a real estate brokerage related to the purchase of four condominium units.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the payment constituted income from a business or property under the Stewart test.

The court also upheld the penalty, finding that the appellant failed to establish a due diligence defence, as her belief that the payment was not taxable was a mistake of law, and she did not take reasonable precautions to avoid the omission.

The appellant brought a motion under Rule 58 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) for the determination of questions of law prior to the hearing of its appeal.

The appellant sought to determine whether a "misrepresentation" under subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act is strictly a misrepresentation of fact, and whether the characterization of gains as income or capital is a question of mixed law and fact falling outside that provision.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issue of whether a misrepresentation is attributable to neglect, carelessness, or wilful default cannot be resolved without an appreciation of the factual circumstances surrounding the filing positions.

As discoveries had not yet occurred, the factual context was necessary to properly determine the questions.

The appellant appealed reassessments for the 2006, 2007, 2008, 2012, and 2013 taxation years, challenging disallowed business losses, business investment losses, rental expenses, and gross negligence penalties.

The Tax Court of Canada upheld the disallowance of the business losses and business investment losses, finding no evidence of actual businesses or investments.

The court also upheld the gross negligence penalties, finding the appellant demonstrated an indifference to whether the law was complied with.

The appeal was allowed in part, based on the respondent's concessions, to reduce a 2008 capital gain and allow rental repair expenses for 2012 and 2013.

The appellant purchased a dental practice and paid GST/HST on the transaction.

More than two years later, he applied for a rebate of the tax, claiming it was paid in error.

The Minister denied the application because it was filed beyond the two-year limitation period in subsection 261(3) of the Excise Tax Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the common law discoverability rule should apply to extend the limitation period.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the discoverability rule does not override the clear statutory limitation period in the Excise Tax Act.