Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Tax Court quashed Dionne Smith’s application for an extension of time to object to a GST new housing rebate assessment for lack of jurisdiction.
The Tax Court fixed costs after a mixed result in three related tax appeals, awarding no costs on the two corporate appeals and $25,000 to the Crown on the individual appeal.
The Tax Court held the notice of assessment was sent, making the taxpayer’s objection and extension requests out of time. The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Tax Court quashed Mr. Amador’s application for extension of time to object because he did not file it within 30 days of the Minister’s refusal.
Appeal dismissed in a GST new housing rebate dispute. The Court found the appellant did not prove an intent to occupy the Cambridge property as a primary residence.
The Tax Court of Canada awarded the appellant costs of $19,600 plus disbursements of $4,122.71 after applying Rule 147 factors to a GST appeal.
The Tax Court may impose s.24 Charter remedies in a civil tax appeal for Charter breaches found in related criminal proceedings; on these facts the respondent is prohibited from introducing or relying on any evidence first collected from the search and seizure at the McCarties' home to establish tax owing, to justify reassessments after the normal assessment period, or to support penalties; evidence first collected from the second audit (or first collected from the search) is excluded for penalty purposes; respondent's factual assumptions in its reply do not enjoy a presumption of correctness…
Source excerpt
The appeals are dismissed because the Appellant failed to produce the necessary policy-level evidence (individual policy pricing and risk allocation data) required by the Federal Court of Appeal's interpretation of paragraph 2(d); absent evidence showing the likelihood and potential loss of risks ordinarily situated outside Canada for each policy, the Court cannot determine the extent of zero-rating and must dismiss the appeals.
Source excerpt
Taxpayer’s books and records were unreliable but the Minister’s four alternative techniques were inadequately pleaded or founded and produced inflated results; the judge adopted a modified actual cash-to-non-cash ratio technique tailored to the taxpayer’s business (accounting for child trips and driver splits), reduced assessed business income for 2006–2008 accordingly, adjusted consequential GST reporting periods, and deleted gross negligence penalties for 2006 and 2007 while upholding them for 2008.
Source excerpt
The statement that the controlling mind and management of Lowfroc was in Canada is a conclusion of mixed fact and law and therefore was improperly pleaded within the Reply’s section purporting to set out the Minister’s findings or assumptions of fact; subparagraph 12.u) must be struck under Rules 53(1)(a) and (c) because it forces the appellant to speculate as to what factual assumptions must be demolished and prejudices and abuses the Court’s process; no leave to amend was granted; costs of $6,000 awarded to the appellant for this and two related motions.
Source excerpt
Explore more
