SimpsonWigle Law LLP Tax News

The Minister of Finance tries to explain his position on income trusts and the problems created by his announcement on Halloween, 2006.

The Supreme Court recently refused leave to appeal to the taxpayer in Hammill v. The Queen, 2005 FCA 252. I wrote about this case here.

On February 1, I will be speaking to the CRA practitioner’s group at the Royal Botanical Gardens about “Tax Cases of Interest”. I have written here about all of the cases on which I will present. The following table lists the cases together with some notes on their current status: (more…)

Bradley v. The Queen, 2006 TCC 500, is something of a surprise. The appellant paid salaries to her young children and attempted to deduct them. The CRA reassessed, and the Tax Court upheld the reassessment because, in the Court’s view, the appellant never really paid anything to the children. She merely deposited amounts to “in trust” accounts for the children over which the appellant had complete control. (more…)

In Morisset c. La Reine, 2006 CCI 483 (French only), the CRA reassessed the taxpayer to include in his income amounts supposedly earned by his “professional corporation”. The taxpayer, at law, was not permitted to share the revenue derived from his professional practice with a corporation, and so the revenue really could only be earned by him. The Tax Court dimissed the taxpayer’s appeal.

Valley Equipment Limited v. The Queen, 2006 TCC 510, is interesting reading in light of Bourgault Industries Ltd. v. The Queen, 2006 TCC 449. In Valley Equipment, the Tax Court judge stated that there was no need to resort to the surrogatum principle to decide the case before her, which also dealt with the treatment of damages received.

In Irmen v. The Queen, 2006 TCC 475, the taxpayer, a shareholder and key employee of a corporation, received amounts from the corporation throughout the taxation year. During the year, the corporation accounted for the amounts as salary, and CPP and tax was deducted and remitted. At the end of the year, however, the taxpayer and his accountant decided that he should really have taken amounts from the corporation as a draw on his shareholder loan. Adjusting entries were made accordingly, and the taxpayer reported only a small amount as employment income in the taxation year. The CRA, however, reassessed the taxpayer as if he had received salary and not a draw on his shareholder loan. (more…)

Some time ago, I wrote a post about M.N.R. v. Redeemer Foundation, 2006 FCA 325. At the time, an online version of the judgement had not yet been published. You can now find the judgement here.

It appears that even the Department of Finance is having to wage war on phishing: see E-mail Fraud Alert.

I wonder how much confusion this will create: Elimination of Tax Packages for Individuals Using the Services of a Tax Professional.