Nadler Estate v. Canada (Attorney General)

Nadler Estate v. Canada (Attorney General)

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not demonstrate a serious issue: the record, including the assignment of a $900,000 debt to a Bahamian corporation for a substantially lower sum shortly after the tax return, established that the CRA requirement was issued for the authorized purpose of collecting...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2005 FCA 385
Parties
Appellant: Estate of the late David Louis Nadler; Respondent: Attorney General of Canada; Respondent: Canada-Israel Securities Ltd.
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Motion for Stay of Production Requirement Under S.231.2 of the Income Tax Act
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Income Tax Act S.231.2, Production of Documents, Stay of Execution, Tripartite Test (rjr Macdonald)
Source Language
en
Tax Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Income Tax Act S.231.2 Production of Documents Stay of Execution Tripartite Test (rjr Macdonald)

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Estate of the late David Louis Nadler

Appellant

Attorney General of Canada

Respondent

Canada-Israel Securities Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Motion for Stay of Production Requirement Under S.231.2 of the Income Tax Act

  1. 1 Whether the CRA requirement for production under s.231.2 of the Income Tax Act was issued for an authorized purpose (collection of tax debt)
  2. 2 Whether the requirement is valid in respect of a non-resident/deceased tax debtor
  3. 3 Whether the appellant established a serious issue under the RJR-Macdonald tripartite test to justify a stay

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not demonstrate a serious issue: the record, including the assignment of a $900,000 debt to a Bahamian corporation for a substantially lower sum shortly after the tax return, established that the CRA requirement was issued for the authorized purpose of collecting the tax debt and s.231.2 applies to non-residents, so a stay was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Interim stay granted by this Court on September 14, 2005, ceases to have effect in accordance with its own terms