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 dismissed Lazaros Gaitanis’s appeal from a GST/HST new housing rebate assessment because he did not prove the required intention at signing.
The Tax Court of Canada allowed Cecilia Osagie’s informal GST/HST rebate appeal, finding she intended to occupy the home as a primary residence and that COVID-19-related events frustrated first occupancy.
On balance of probabilities the Court found the appellants occupied the Property as a residence at or shortly after the end of 2012; that factual finding meant the April 25, 2014 sale was an exempt supply under Part I of Schedule V (either via s.3 or para.4(b) if they were builders, or s.2 if not); accordingly the appeals were allowed and the matter referred to the Minister for reassessment without GST/HST payable on the April 25, 2014 supply; the Court declined to decide whether the appellants were builders and reserved that issue for potential future litigation.
Source excerpt
The court found that, on the evidence, neither property met the statutory notion of "substantial renovation"—the Minister's calculations overstated renovated areas (Craven Road was not gutted and Fourth Street included two unrecognized intact basement rooms and a borderline 90.6% computation)—therefore the reassessments were incorrect and must be referred back for reconsideration.
Source excerpt
The Tax Court held that Amex’s Membership Rewards Program was a single composite supply tied to exempt financial services, so ITCs and notional ITCs were denied.
The appeal is dismissed because s.191.1 applies: the Department of Health payments constituted government funding in respect of the facility, the Appellant reasonably expected to receive that funding at or before the self-supply, and possession/use of the units was intended for occupancy as a place of residence by seniors; therefore GST/HST collectible on the deemed self-supply is deemed equal to the input tax credits claimed.
Source excerpt
DTI was the recipient of taxable supplies of diesel when its pre-funded T-Chek cards were used and thereby purchased fuel from suppliers; DTI promptly (re)supplied that diesel to contract truckers and those supplies were taxable. However, 69% of diesel chargebacks and 95% of maintenance chargebacks related to supplies made outside Canada (primarily in the U.S.) and therefore are not taxable in Canada; supplies were not zero-rated as freight transportation services because the alignment of supplier/recipient required by the zero-rating provision was absent.
Source excerpt
June 13, 2011 sale met the statutory criteria in Schedule VI Part V s.12 and was zero‑rated; the July 31, 2012 sale was conceded zero‑rated; lack of adequate documentary evidence prevented finding other contested sales, deposits or work‑in‑progress to be zero‑rated or non‑taxable; an arithmetic/auditorial error overstated the operating expense benefit for one vehicle, reducing HST by $351.49 per year for 2011‑2013 (total $1,054.47); the gross negligence penalty related to the uncollected HST concession was deleted but the Minister met the burden to impose a gross negligence penalty on vehicle…
Source excerpt
On the facts the court found Jayco acted on behalf of Canadian dealers in arranging OT shipments of RVs and delivery/tender occurred at Jayco’s US premises when goods were turned over to the carrier, so RV supplies were deemed made outside Canada under ETA paragraph 142(2)(a) and were not taxable; by contrast, for parts Frontier acted as Jayco’s agent, title/delivery did not pass at Jayco’s US premises and parts were delivered/made available in Canada, so Jayco was required to collect and remit the provincial component of HST on parts.
Source excerpt
The services provided by Canadian Auto were not a 'particular service of transporting' tangible personal property because the business supplied a driver or driving service rather than the means of carriage and did not assume full responsibility for the supply; therefore the supplies were not freight transportation services and are not zero‑rated under section 8 of Part VII of Schedule VI of the Excise Tax Act.
Source excerpt
Explore more
