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 motions to set aside notices of discontinuance in two GST/HST appeals, finding the appellants misunderstood the basis of the liability.
The Tax Court enforced an email-based settlement, finding a binding agreement on the GST/HST appeals and referring the assessments back for reassessment.
Appeal under the Excise Tax Act concerning HST, small supplier status, and ITCs for an Uber driver. The Court allowed the appeal in part and referred the matter back.
The Tax Court dismissed a GST/HST New Housing Rebate appeal, finding the co-purchaser did not intend to use the home as his primary residence when the agreement was signed.
Court found Substantial Completion Date was January 13, 2020 (town final inspection). Court accepted credible evidence that the application was mailed December 31, 2021 (accountant testimony corroborated by Canada Post receipt). Under Regulation 46(6) the due date was January 13, 2022; because the application was mailed before that date it was timely. The assessment denying the rebate was set aside and the matter remitted to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment to grant the rebate of $16,080; no costs awarded.
Source excerpt
The Appellant failed to prove that a determinable portion of the settlement payment constituted consideration for taxable supplies and, critically, failed to have the prescribed documentary evidence (including supplier GST number and amount/description of supply) required by s.169(4) and s.3 of the ITC Regulations at the time of filing; most of the payment was compensatory and not subject to GST, so the claimed ITCs must be denied and the appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to establish that it acquired the vehicles (purchases pre-dated incorporation, no transfer, no bills of sale or assignments), the GST/HST was neither payable by nor paid by the appellant, and there is no legal basis to treat shareholder-owned vehicles as corporate assets merely because the corporation is a PREC; therefore appellant not entitled to the claimed ITCs.
Source excerpt
The Appellant is not the recipient of the supplies because the purchase agreements named and bound the three individuals who were legally liable to pay the consideration; the statutory test under s.256.2(3) looks to the person who is recipient as defined in s.123(1) and does not equate bare-trust beneficial ownership with being the recipient for purposes of the NRRPR, so the corporate Appellant is not entitled to the rebate (appeal dismissed).
Source excerpt
The Court found each patient transaction was a single composite supply and that the predominant element was the dental professional services (diagnosis, design, preparatory work, fitting, adjustment, installation), not the lab-fabricated prosthesis; because the predominant element was an exempt health-care service under Schedule V, the supplies were not commercial activities for purposes of s.169(1) ETA and the appellant was not entitled to the claimed ITCs, so the CRA assessments were upheld.
Source excerpt
s.191(1) applied to units registered as condominium units and the correct asset to value is the individual condominium unit in the normal market for sales of comparable condominium units; the direct comparison approach is the appropriate valuation method for such individual units; the Appellant's cost plus 6% method is not an accepted market valuation method and the Appellant's expert valued the wrong asset (entire building) using the income approach; CRA's comparables and a 6% absorption discount were supported by the evidence; accordingly CRA's reassessments for the periods Dec 1, 2008 to J…
Source excerpt
Explore more
