Zakrzewski v. The Queen

Zakrzewski v. The Queen

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to produce credible evidence or records that the claimed losses were incurred by the joint venture; the participation agreement did not clearly allocate losses to the joint venture and instead addressed the co-venturer, and the Court found misrepresentation by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2008 TCC 385
Parties
Appellant: Wojciech Zakrzewski; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
Court
Tax Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Income Tax Reassessment Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Business Losses, Joint Venture, Reassessment, Misrepresentation, Evidence and Documentation, Carelessness or Neglect, Loss Carryovers
Source Language
en
Taxation Income Tax Act Business Losses Joint Venture Reassessment Misrepresentation Evidence and Documentation Carelessness or Neglect +1 more

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wojciech Zakrzewski

Appellant

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Income Tax Reassessment Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether losses claimed from the Can-Pol Investment Corporation Joint Venture were incurred in a business of the joint venture
  2. 2 Whether the appellant produced sufficient records to substantiate the claimed business losses
  3. 3 Whether the reassessments were valid given the normal reassessment period and allegations of misrepresentation by carelessness or neglect

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to produce credible evidence or records that the claimed losses were incurred by the joint venture; the participation agreement did not clearly allocate losses to the joint venture and instead addressed the co-venturer, and the Court found misrepresentation by carelessness or neglect sufficient to validate reassessment beyond the normal period.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Reassessments for 2000 to 2005 upheld.