The CRA and the Crown like to say (or at least sometimes they act as if), in the objection and Tax Court appeal process, all that matters is whether the assessment in issue is correct. Justice J.E. Hershfield, in Wood v. The Queen, 2008 TCC 105, begged to differ. (more…)
Subsection 162(2.1) of the Income Tax Act provides for a penalty for a non-resident corporation that fails to file a return and that it is liable to a penalty under subsections 162(1) or (2). The penalties provided by the latter subsections are computed as a percentage of tax payable. What happens if no tax is payable and so no penalty is applicable under the latter subsections? Does the 162(2.1) penalty still apply? (more…)
The CRA has revoked the status of two more charities that had participated in tax shelters. (more…)
The taxation of insurance policies is a world of its own, and in my experience not many advisers seem able to explain that world clearly. The virtue of White v. The Queen, 2008 TCC 414, an informal procedure case, is that the judge takes the time to provide a good explanation of why a “return of premium” is, for the most part, subject to tax.
The Supreme Court released its decision in Lipson today: see Lipson v. The Queen, 2009 SCC 1. The CanLII link to the case appears to be down right now, but it’ll probably be fixed later.
The following article appeared in the latest edition of the Hamilton Law Association Law Journal.
The Income Tax Act (Canada) (the “Act”) contains numerous limitation periods that affect when the Canada Revenue Agency (the “CRA”) can issue an assessment to a taxpayer and when a taxpayer can and cannot dispute such an assessment. Understanding these limitation periods is an important pre-requisite for advising clients about a wide variety of legal problems, including, for example, the expiry period for representations and warranties in a share purchase agreement. (more…)
