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
Tax Court allowed two section 160 appeals in part, holding Japseet Gill gave $85,000 consideration and Harman Gill gave none, then ordered reassessment using the corrected underlying liability.
Dividends paid to the appellants were not consideration for their services as a matter of law; therefore s.160 applies and the third party assessments stand but must be recalculated to reflect the conceded reduction of the corporation's underlying liability to $86,848.04.
Source excerpt
Judicial review of a CRA refusal to waive $3,941.66 in arrears interest was dismissed. The Court found the delegate’s decision reasonable despite alleged delay, error, and fraud-related hardship.
The motion was dismissed because the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of contempt: critical factual uncertainties (the year of transfer determining the required assessment adjustment and whether payments were made personally by the appellant versus from assets held in trust) precluded a finding of wilful disobedience, and the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to order refunds or resolve allocation of payments; absent evidence of Ministerial knowledge the Minister is not an appropriate contemnor and, although CRA could be, no prima facie case was shown.
Source excerpt
The testamentary clause could not lawfully extend unseizability to property acquired by reinvestment absent express legislative authority; therefore the proceeds from the sale of the residence were not exempt from seizure and subsection 160(1) applied to the transfers from Maurice Boivin/succession. Subsection 160(1) does not require an intent to avoid tax collection. The $30,000 payment to 6149812 Canada Inc. was, on the evidence, a loan and not a transfer without consideration, so the assessment against the company was vacated.
Source excerpt
The court found a resulting, or alternatively constructive, trust in favour of the defendant and awarded him half of the net sale proceeds, with offsets for rent and debts.
A capital dividend paid by a corporation out of its assets is a transfer of property within the meaning of s.160(1); dividends accrue by virtue of share ownership and not by consideration, therefore the appellants provided no consideration sufficient to defeat liability and s.160(1) applies, sustaining joint and several liability for the corporation's unpaid tax.
Source excerpt
The Tax Court found the contemporaneous running balance, promissory note and transfer agreement authentic and credible, establishing that the husband owed the appellant more than the value of his equity and that the transfer was for adequate consideration; consequently the s.160 assessment was vacated.
Source excerpt
Because the National Bank renounced its earlier ownership and the appellants, by subrogation, continued the hypothecary proceedings and obtained a Superior Court judgment recorded in the land register declaring them owners retroactive to the notice of intent, the immovable left the son's patrimony and the transfer to non‑arm's length parents occurred, engaging liability under s.160 of the Income Tax Act.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the Tax Court judge properly assessed credibility, applied an accepted empirical valuation method (gross commission income multiple of two, added $10,292 for share value and applied a 30% reduction), properly presumed a non-competition clause in an arm's-length analysis under the circumstances, and there was no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings or valuation under s.160 of the Income Tax Act.
Source excerpt
Explore more
