in Canadian Caselaw › Tax Court of Canada
in vLex Canada

677 results for Canadian Caselaw › Tax Court of Canada

  • vLex Rating
  • Kufsky v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 254

    [1]  Michelle Kufsky (the “Appellant”) appeals from a third party assessment issued by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) pursuant to section 160 of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp) (the “Act”) in respect of a tax debt owed by Mon Refuge Décor Inc. (the “Corporation”).

  • Lagace v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 249

    [1]  In 2015 Mrs. Lagace was employed as the Canadian Country Manager overseeing the Canadian sales force and operations of a large multinational manufacturer of dental instruments and products headquartered in Chicago. She has appealed to this Court on certain disallowed employee expenses relating to:

  • Hide and Seek Bailiff Services Ltd. v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 251

    [1]  The Appellant, Hide & Seek Bailiff Services (“Hide & Seek”), was incorporated in British Columbia in 2003. Hide & Seek provided various bailiff services, including tasks such as repossessing vehicles, service of pleadings and skip tracing.

  • Stark International Inc. v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 248

    [1]  These Reasons pertain to the Appeals instituted by Stark International Inc. (“Stark”) in respect of reassessments (the “Reassessments”) issued by the Canada Revenue Agency (the “CRA”) on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) in respect of the 2009, 2010 and 2011 taxation years, each of which ended on December 31 of the particular calendar year.

  • Slow Pub LTD v. M.N.R., 2019 TCC 247

    [1]  The Appellant Slow Pub Ltd. appeals the April 19, 2018 decision of the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) in which she confirmed a ruling that John Zaremba was an employee of the Appellant and engaged in insurable employment within the meaning of paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Employment Insurance Act during the period from January 1 to October 23, 2017 (the “Period”).

  • Kam-Press Metal Products Ltd. v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 246

    [1]  These are appeals by Kam-Press Metal Products Ltd. (the “Appellant”) of the reassessment of its 2009 and 2010 taxation years by notices dated May 15, 2012 and September 23, 2013 respectively (the “Reassessments”). The Reassessments disallowed the Appellant’s claims for scientific research and experimental development (“SR&ED”) expenditures and investment tax credits as follows:

  • 407 International Inc. v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 245

    [1]  This is a motion by the Respondent for

  • McCartie v. The Queen, 2018 TCC 185

    [1]  The Appellant, Colin McCartie (“Mr. McCartie”), brings this application under section 58 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), (“Rule 58”) for the determination of certain questions (the “Rule 58 Questions”) to be posed to a motion judge in advance of a full trial. Mr. McCartie submits his proposed questions concern the admissibility of evidence which the Minister of...

  • Fry v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 236

    [1]  The Appellant, Robin Fry, appeals (electing this Court's informal procedure) two reassessments under the Income Tax Act (Canada) (Act) raised September 14, 2018 by the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) regarding the Appellant's 2011 and 2013 taxation years respectively. He sought also to appeal a reassessment similarly raised respecting his 2012 taxation year. But as that was a...

  • Greenstreet v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 237

    [1]  The Minister of National Revenue reviewed the T3 and T5 slips issued to Richard Greenstreet for his 2016 tax year and concluded that Mr. Greenstreet had under-reported his investment income by approximately $24,000. The Minister reassessed Mr. Greenstreet to include that amount in his income. The Minister also assessed repeat omission penalties under subsection 163(1) of the Income Tax

  • Holliday v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 232

    [1]  The Appellant, Paul Murray Holliday, has appealed an assessment raised September 4, 2015 by the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) under the federal Excise Tax Act (Act). The assessment is of the Appellant’s liability as a director of the corporation Holliday Home Exteriors Ltd. (Holliday Ltd.) in the amount of $87,829.26 of un-remitted GST/HST, plus associated interest and...

  • Barrett v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 228

    [1]  The sole issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the Appellant, Mr. Barrett, is entitled to deduct legal fees in the amount of $27,333 from his income in the 2015 taxation year.

  • A.A.I. Contracting Services Ltd. v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 233

    [1]  These two appeals under two federal statutes - the Employment Insurance Act (EIA) and the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) - concern the worker status of a person who did work for the corporate Appellant, A.A.I. Contracting Supplies Ltd.  (AAI). That person was Mr. Ghislain LeDuc (GL). The principal of AAI is Mr. Straun Costie (SC) and he testified for AAI. I advised SC at the commencement of

  • Crocket v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 203

    [1]  The Appellant, Dustin Crockett is appealing the Minister of National Revenue’s (the “Minister”) assessment disallowing rental losses for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years. The losses related to a vacation rental home, owned by the Appellant’s mother but rented by the Appellant, located in Tulameen, British Columbia. The amounts of claimed losses in issue were $28,938.34 in 2013 and $25,9

  • Rybakov v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 209

    [1]  Yulia Rybakova was assessed by the Minister for taxes under Part IX of the the Excise Tax Act (Canada) (the “ETA”) for the reporting period June 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015. Following Mrs. Rybakova’s objection to and appeal from that assessment, the Minister reassessed Mrs. Rybakova for the same reporting period. Mrs. Rybakova immediately amended her notice of appeal to address the...

  • Kurnik v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 206

    [1]  This appeal concerns the deductibility of legal fees from income purportedly incurred to collect or retain employment income and benefits.

  • Miller v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 204

    [1]  This is an appeal by Eleanor Miller (the “Appellant”) of a reassessment of her 2003 taxation year by notice dated March 22, 2016 (the “Reassessment”). The Reassessment reduced the charitable donation tax credit allowed to the Appellant for a donation on December 3, 2003 of multimedia courseware (the “Courseware”) to the Canadian Charity Association of Ontario (“CCAO”).

  • Paletta v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 205

    [1]  These appeals concern a complex series of transactions purportedly designed to finance investments in Hollywood film productions. The Appellants characterize these transactions as bona fide investments made as part of an overall strategy to break into the film industry in a big way. The Respondent characterizes those same transactions as nothing more than shams and/or tax shelters.

  • CIBC World Markets Inc. v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 201

    [1]  This is a motion, brought by written submissions, wherein the Appellant seeks costs on the following basis:

  • Wardlaw v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 199

    [1]  One feature of the appeal is that it illustrates that there are circumstances where a penalty that appears to be a 50 % penalty can in fact be significantly higher, in this case around 70 %.

  • Robitaille v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 200

    [1]  The Appellant, Andre Robitaille, appeals an assessment for his 2016 taxation year in respect of an “excess TFSA amount” arising from a deposit of $40,000 to his tax-free savings account (“TFSA”) that he made inadvertently in mid-2016.

  • Wise v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 196

    [1]  The Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) reassessed the Appellant for shareholder benefits of $457,663 and $164,006 for the 2011 and 2012 taxation years, respectively, and did so pursuant to subsection 15(1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C.1985, c.1 (5th Supp.), as amended (the “Act”).

  • Younis v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 198

    [1]  The Excise Tax Act, R.S.C., 1985 c. E-15, as amended (the “ETA”) provides for a regime of rebates for taxpayers who acquire and occupy new residential real estate. There are certain rules for new home rebates and others for rental properties. Generally, a rebate is afforded a new owner who is the first to occupy the unit. With respect to suppliers who build or are deemed to build and...

  • Lohas Farm Inc. v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 197

    [1]  During the periods under appeal, iPhones and iPads (“iPhones”) [1] were released in Canada before they were released in Hong Kong and in Taiwan.

  • Chen v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 192

    [1]  The Minister’s agents, the CRA, disallowed the Appellant’s medical expense tax credit of $ 5,720. The Appellant incurred these expenses in order to harvest and store stem cells. These stem cells were harvested from the umbilical cord when she was delivered of her second son. The procedure was originally rejected as an eligible expense by the Minister on various grounds. Ultimately,...

  • Wallens v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 193

    [1]  The Minister denied three categories of employment expenses claimed by the appellant, Ms. Wallens, in taxation year 2016. These three categories of claimed expenses and amounts were on account of: motor vehicle expenses in the amount of $5,427; accounting fees of $734; and, home office expenses $6,207 for a total of $12,368. Upon reassessment, the Minister disallowed $ 9,473 and...

  • Georgeson Shareholder Communication Canada Inc. v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 148

    [1]  These reasons address a motion made by the Appellant, Georgeson Shareholder Communication Canada Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Applicant”), pursuant to section 170.1 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (the “Rules”) [1] .

  • 2237065 Ontario Inc. v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 189

    [1]  The appellant, 2237065 Ontario Inc., appeals the Minister of National Revenue’s April 6, 2016 reassessment in which she reassessed the appellant for unreported GST/HST collectible, among other things.

  • Jiang v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 188

    [1]  The issue in this case is to determine whether, following the custody order issued by the Superior Court of Québec in December 2014, Ms. Jiang was still eligible to receive the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) for her children.

  • 1717398 Ontario Inc. (Lost Forest Park) v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 183

    [1]  The Appellant appeals from a Notice of Reassessment made by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) on November 18, 2015 disallowing the Appellant’s claim for the small business deduction (the “SBD”) for the 2012, 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

  • Free signup to view additional results