Tax Court (Canada)

[1] Tim Fuhr appeals from reassessments made under the Income Tax Act (ITA) for his 2011, 2012 and 2013 taxation years. With respect to 1499546 Alberta Ltd. (1499), the appeals are from reassessments for its taxation years ending September 30, 2012, and 2013 (the 2012 and 2013 taxation years). The appeals were heard together on common evidence. At times, I will refer to Tim Fuhr and 1499...

[1] This is an appeal by the Appellant of assessments for his 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 tax returns. The Canada Revenue Agency has assessed the Appellant’s unreported income of $33,646 for 2006, $34,840 for 2007, $27,343 for 2008 and $27,452 for 2009. The Appellant filed a Notice of Objection on November 10th, 2011 and the Minister confirmed the assessments on March 25th, 2013.

[1] On August 22, 2023, Lark Investments Inc. (Lark or the Appellant) filed a Notice of Motion before this Court pursuant to sections 53 and 65 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (Rules) seeking an order:

[1] This matter involves a motion made by the Respondent to quash the appeal from an assessment made by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) under the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) (the “Act”).

[1] This is an appeal of a reassessment of the Appellant’s 2006 taxation year, as reflected in a Notice of Reassessment dated March 14, 2016.

[1] This matter involves a motion made by the Appellant for costs in this appeal to be determined as a lump sum in lieu of or in addition to any taxed costs pursuant to section 147 of the Rules of the Tax Court of Canada (General Procedure).

[1] This appeal relates to the sale of a used condominium unit that the Appellant acquired as an investment property. For the first 9 years that it owned the condominium unit, the Appellant rented it to third parties under long-term leases. However, for most of the last 14 months that it owned the condominium unit, the Appellant leased the property under a number of short-term leases through the...

[1] Mr. Volodymyr Bykov (the “Appellant”) appeals reassessments of his 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 taxation years (collectively, the “Reassessments”). The Reassessments reduced or denied certain expenses that the Appellant claimed in respect of his employment during his 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 taxation years (collectively, the “Taxation Years”).

[1] Encore Cellular Inc. appeals the Minister’s reassessments, which determined the corporation had underreported GST payable and over claimed ITC’s during the reporting periods beginning on May 1, 2009 and ending on April 30, 2014 (the “Relevant Periods”). The reporting periods ending on April 30, 2010 and April 30, 2011 were statute-barred at the time of reassessment.

[1] This application is brought for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal under the Income Tax Act against an assessment for the 2012 taxation year and a reassessment for the 2013 taxation year.

[1] In my May 10, 2023 judgment allowing the appeal with costs to the appellant, I gave the parties time to reach an agreement on costs failing which they were directed to file written submissions for my consideration. I also directed that if I did not hear from the parties with respect to costs, then costs would be awarded to the appellant according to Tariff B.[1]

[1] The Appellant appealed reassessments of her 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 tax years.

[1] This appeal relates to the application of the available-for-use rules contained in subsections 13(26) to 13(32) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, C.1 (5th Supp.) (the “Act”). These rules provide that a taxpayer may not add the cost of a depreciable capital property to the relevant undepreciated capital cost (“UCC”) pool until the property is considered, under the

[1] The Minister of National Revenue denied Michelle Adams’ application for the disability tax credit (DTC) on the basis that her celiac disease symptoms and treatment do not meet the relevant criteria under the Income Tax Act (Act).[1]

[1] This is a general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) matter, involving Canadian resource property (CRP) as defined in the federal Income Tax Act (Act).[1]

[1] Andrew Ferri has appealed the assessment of him under section 227.1 of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the “Act”) for the unremitted withholdings of 381922 Ontario Limited operating as North American Tool and Die of which he was a director.

[1] These Reasons pertain to the Appeals brought by Skylight Travel & Tours Inc. (“Skylight”), Suresh Kumar Aravindakshan (“Suresh”) and Titus George (“Titus”) in respect of assessments issued to them, under the Employment Insurance Act (the “EIA”)[1] and the Canada Pension Plan (the “CPP”)[2], by the Minister of National...

[1] The circumstances surrounding this appeal are extremely unfortunate. At the end of these reasons, I will make some comments about these circumstances and I would urge the parties to carefully consider them.

[1] There is no disagreement concerning the facts. There is no disagreement concerning the figures.

[1] The Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) reassessed Mr. Yu Xing He (the “Appellant” or “Mr. He”) under the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) beyond the normal reassessment period pursuant to subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i) of the Act for the 2009 to 2012 taxation years. Applying the net worth method, the Minister added additional net...

[1] Kichton Contracting, the Appellant, appeals from a determination by the Minister of National Revenue that Russ Giselbrecht, the Intervenor, was in insurable employment during the period January 7, 2019 to February 20, 2020.[2]

[1] Parliament created the Canada Child Benefit (the “CCB”) as an income-tested tax-free monthly payment administered by the Canada Revenue Agency (the “CRA”) to help eligible families with the cost of raising children under 18 years of age. The rules surrounding the CCB are found in Subdivision A.1 of the Income Tax Act.[1]

[1] Using the net worth method, the Minister assessed the Appellant for failing to report substantial income on his income tax returns for the 2009, 2010 and 2011 taxation years. He was also assessed penalties under subsection 163(2) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.).

[1] The Appellant, Mr. Keyvan Ahmadi, appeals the denial by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) of his application for a GST/HST New Housing Rebate under the Excise Tax Act (the “ETA”) with respect to a property he purchased in Toronto in 2010 (the “Rebate Property”).

[1] This prosecution has a long and complex procedural history. For detailed summary, the reader may refer to a decision which I rendered on May 29, 2014: R vs McCartie 2014 BCPC 128; [2014] BCJ #1227. In brief:

[1] The Appellant appeals from the Minister’s notice of reassessment dated August 27, 2015 denying the deduction of non-capital and other losses and deductions for the 2010 and 2011 taxation years on the basis of the application of the General Anti Avoidance Rules (GAAR) under s.245 of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”). More specifically the Appellant was denied the deduction of

[1] The appellant received in her bank account a series of deposits from her husband at a time when he had an outstanding income tax debt. The Minister of National Revenue assessed her for the non-arm’s length transfer on the basis that those monies should have been paid to the Minister.

[1] The Appellant, Mr. Gino Auddino, claims 50% of the Canada Child Benefit (the “CCB”) as a “shared-custody parent” from July 2015 to June 2020 under the provisions of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”). The Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) disallowed the Appellant’s claim by notices of redetermination dated March 20, 2020....

[1] The Appellants have brought this motion for an Order allowing the appeals of each of the 79 Appellants (the “79 Appellants”) named in this motion. I will refer to the appeals of the 79 named Appellants as the “79 Appeals”.

[1] Louis Zachary (the “Applicant”) is applying for an order for an extension of time to object under the Income Tax Act (the “Act”)[1] for the 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 taxation years.