Income tax

SCC Decision: January 8, 2009

Lipson v. Canada, 2009 SCC 1
Click here to link to the full judgment.
(Tax / Income Tax / GAAR)
L and his wife bought a family residence, then entered a series of transactions involving a mortgage and a loan to buy shares in a family corporation.  Mortgage funds were used to repay the share loan, and L deducted mortgage interest payments and reported share taxable dividends over the following years.  The Minister of National Revenue disallowed the deductions.  The Court held that under the general anti-avoidance rule ("GAAR"), the deductions should be disallowed.
Majority/Dissent/Dissent: 4/2/1

SCC Decision: May 22, 2008

R. v. McLarty, 2008 SCC 26
Click here to link to the full judgment.
(Taxation / Income tax)
In 1992, M bought an interest in proprietary seismic data, with payment satisfied by a down payment and a promissory note, repayable according to a somewhat complex scheme.  M treated his purchase as a largely deductible expense, but was reassessed.  The Court found that M was entitled to his deduction, since he incurred an absolute liability.  M and the seller dealt with each other at arm's length.
Majority/Dissent: 7/2

SCC Decision: July 12, 2007

Canada v. Addison & Leyen Ltd., 2007 SCC 33
Click here to link to the full judgment.
(Income tax)
In 2001, nine years after reassessing a company to pay more taxes, Revenue Canada determined that those taxes would not be recovered.  Revenue Canada sent notices to the company's shareholders, claiming that tax liability from the shareholders.  The shareholders objected, but Revenue Canada did not respond.  The shareholders did not take the matter to court.  In 2005, the shareholders sought judicial review of Revenue Canada's decision, claiming that the long delay in issuing the assessment was abusive.  The Court struck the application for judicial review, finding that the relevant statute prescribed no limitation on assessments.
Majority/Dissent: 7/0

SCC decision: May 10, 2007

Dunne v. Quebec (Deputy Minister of Revenue), 2007 SCC 19
Click here to link to the full judgment.  
(Tax / Provincial Taxation Power / Constitution)
D lived in Ontario but received retirement benefits from his previous partnership in Quebec.  Although he did no business in Quebec, D was taxed by Revenu Québec for the income earned from the retirement allowance.  The Court found that this taxation was constitutional; Quebec could tax D on his income earned in the province.
Majority/Dissenting: 9/0

Syndicate content