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 upheld the reassessment extension, found ExxonMobil’s feasibility study costs deductible, rejected subsection 247(2), and vacated the Part XIII assessment.
The Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to review the Minister's discretionary denial of a downward transfer pricing adjustment under s.247(10); consequently it cannot determine s.247(2) in isolation for the purpose of ordering or referring for a downward reassessment, and the Tax Court's quashing of MEGlobal's appeal was correctly upheld.
Source excerpt
The court refused to strike the Minister's Replies as an abuse of process because the respondent's answers to demands for particulars (albeit poorly communicated) provided the arm's length prices relied upon and the defects were not incurable; issue estoppel did not apply to different taxation years or amended contracts; Rule 170.1 relief was inappropriate because factual and legal controversies remained; the respondent was ordered to provide specified particulars by June 30, 2025 and a timetable for disclosure, discoveries and reporting was set, with costs in the cause.
Source excerpt
The Court allowed the appeal: the payments for services received by BlackBerry's US affiliates were not FAPI because, on the facts, the services formed a composite, reciprocal, and highly integrated bundle of activities indispensable to the design, manufacturing oversight and saleability of BlackBerry handheld devices and therefore fell outside the FAPI deeming or were excluded by s.95(3)(b) and (d); consequently the Minister's FAPI inclusion for 2010 is overturned and the FAT issue is moot.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that a Minister’s refusal to grant a downward transfer pricing adjustment under s. 247(10) of the ITA is not part of an assessment.
The Tax Court of Canada ruled on a voir dire about expert evidence in BlackBerry’s FAPI appeal, admitting only limited portions of one report and excluding another.
The loan was interest-free; therefore s.17(1) applies to impute income computed at the prescribed rate and the amounts K&D booked as receivable interest are properly characterized as imputed income under s.17(1), not deductible under s.20(21); alternatively any asserted interest was extinguished by the 2006 partial repayment under the loan's payment priority.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Minister's opinion under s.247(10) ITA is outside the Tax Court's exclusive original jurisdiction because the ITA does not expressly provide an appeal from that opinion and the Tax Court's statutory remedies (vacate, vary or refer an assessment under s.171) do not include the power to quash or compel the Minister's opinion; therefore judicial review in Federal Court is available to quash or order mandamus as needed, and both Federal Court and Tax Court remedies may be required to give full relief.
Source excerpt
Subparagraph 247(2)(b)(i) requires that the transaction or series would not have been entered into by persons dealing at arm's length under any terms or conditions; paragraphs 247(2)(b) and (d) permit substituting an arm's length transaction for the existing transaction to adjust pricing, but do not authorize ignoring a subsidiary's separate corporate existence or reallocating all subsidiary profits to the Canadian parent where the Tax Court found arm's length pricing and no value at contract formation.
Source excerpt
Granting leave was denied because, although the financial stakes made additional expense proportionate, the other statutory factors weighed against leave: the appeals lack public significance, the number and nature of experts proposed (notably four transfer pricing experts) risk duplication and exceed norms, and CIBC delayed bringing the motion thereby prejudicing the parties; duplication is a proper consideration under subsection 145(5) and the balance of factors did not justify seven experts.
Source excerpt
Explore more
