
Tax judgments from Canadian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
In a recent Federal Court of Appeal decision, the Crown requested enhanced costs for a tax case but was denied. The Court ruled that the standard tariff should apply, rejecting the Crown's request for higher costs.
In a tax case before the Tax Court of Canada, the judge ruled that certain parts of an appellant's legal documents were struck down because they raised issues that had already been resolved. This means the a person's appeal could not proceed on those points.
In this case, the Tax Court allowed an appeal brought by a taxpayer regarding reassessment of GST/HST beyond the statutory limitation period due to misrepresentations caused by neglect or carelessness. However, penalties for gross negligence were vacated as the court found insufficient evidence of serious misconduct.
The Respondents were found guilty of contempt for failing to provide required documents and information to the Minister of National Revenue, as ordered by Justice Thorne. They were fined and warned of potential imprisonment if they did not comply with the order.
The Tax Court of Canada dismissed a motion by the respondent seeking permission to examine a representative from a person for discovery purposes. The court ruled that the respondent did not meet the strict requirements set out in Rule 99(2) of the Tax Court Rules (General Procedure).
The Tax Court dismissed a a person's appeals regarding reassessments for their tax years from 2010 to 2012. The court found that the a person was liable for penalties because they knowingly or through wilful blindness made false statements about business and capital losses in their tax returns.
In this case, the Tax Court dismissed appeals by a corporation and its shareholder who challenged the Canada Revenue Agency’s reassessments based on net worth analysis of household expenses. The court upheld the reassessments, finding that the taxpayers did not provide sufficient evidence to disprove the Minister's assumptions or offer an alternative method for determining income.