In a post I wrote in the spring, I summarized briefly Desormiers c. Lalumière, 2006 QCCS 2357, a decision of the Quebec Superior Court, which seemed to call into question the effectiveness of price adjustment clauses. (more…)
The Parliament of Canada website reports that
The Governor General informed the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons that the First Session of the 39th Parliament was prorogued on Friday, September 14, 2007. Prorogation is the ending of a parliamentary session.
The Speech from the Throne, which will open the Second Session of the 39th Parliament, will be read on Tuesday, October 16, 2007.
This means that Bill C-33 died on the order paper and that the Government must re-introduce it when the next session begins sitting. Bill C-33, of course, included the new rules for NRTs, FIEs, non-competes (new section 56.4) and split receipts (for charities), among other things. The split receipt proposals have been around since December, 2002!
A garnishment (or “requirement to pay”) under section 224 of the Income Tax Act can be a real headache for the garnishee. The garnishee is put in the middle of another taxpayer’s troubles with the CRA, and the scope of the requirement is sometimes unclear. (more…)
Finance just announced that “Canada’s New Government Sign[ed] Protocol to the Canada-U.S Tax Treaty for the Benefit of Canadians”. The news release summarizes the changes implemented as follows: (more…)
Making an application for fairness—or “taxpayer relief” as it is now called—is often a frustrating process for a tax professional. One wonders, sometimes, whether the CRA agent responsible even reads the application.
The CRA has issued Information Circular IC07-1 about how it handles relief requests, in a perfect world. Dobson v. Canada (Attorney General), 2007 FC 565, is an example of how the process goes off the rails.
Subsection 227.1(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the “Act”) permits the CRA to assess a director of a corporation for the corporation’s failure to remit source deductions. Subsection 227.1(4) of the Act, however, provides that
no action … to recover any amount payable by a director of a corporation under subsection [227.1(1)] shall be commenced more than two years after the director last ceased to be a director of that corporation.
What happens if a director, who is otherwise potentially liable under section 227.1, fails to resign, but the corporation of which he is a director dissolves involuntarily and more than two years passes before the CRA issues an assessment under section 227.1? (more…)
In Baxter v. The Queen, 2006 TCC 230, Mr. Justice Bell examined the definition of “tax shelter” in the Income Tax Act and concluded that the appellant taxpayer, a Mr. Baxter, did not buy a shelter when he purchased trading software. The Federal Court of Appeal disagreed and allowed the Crown’s appeal. (more…)
