SimpsonWigle Law LLP Tax News

In Jeannotte v R, 2011 TCC 247, the taxpayer’s representative tried to argue that the Court should make an exception to the kiddie tax rules on income from a trust that was set up, not to avoid tax, but to protect the education savings of the minor beneficiaries. The Court was having none of it because it was clear that, on the facts, the kiddie tax was payable:

[17] Mr. Jeannotte [the taxpayer representative] stated that the law was not fair and asked that the Court interpret section 120.4 in a manner consistent with his argument. However, the Court must interpret the section as it finds it. As stated by Rothstein J.A., as he then was, in Chaya v Canada[2004 FCA 327] at paragraph 4:

[4] The applicant says that the law is unfair and he asks the Court to make an exception for him. However the Court does not have that power. The Court must take the statute as it finds it. It is not open to the Court to make exceptions to statutory provisions on the grounds of fairness or equity. If the applicant considers the law unfair, his remedy is with Parliament, not with the Court.

[18] The appeal is dismissed.

The upsurge in interest in all things poker-related has sort of passed me by, like a lot of other trends and fashions. But, because I am a tax nerd, I have asked myself why it is that those who make a living playing poker, or who make some money at it anyway, don’t seem to pay tax on their winnings? I suspect that the answer can be found in Cohen v R, 2011 TCC 262. Continue reading →

In RICHARD A. KANAN CORPORATION v R, 2011 TCC 211, an informal procedure case, the Court was asked “how much information can the Minister, or the Court, require a taxpayer to produce in support of his or her expenses, if that information is subject to solicitor-client privilege?” (¶ 1). Continue reading →