Using “a textual, contextual and purposive analysis”, the Tax Court in Zhang v R, 2017 TCC 258 (informal procedure), concluded that “may deduct” in ‘D’ in the formula in 118.61(1) meant “is entitled to deduct” rather than “chooses to deduct”.
One of the “arguments” advanced by amateur lawyers who question the legality of the income tax is that no “official” consolidated version of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp), as amended, exists. Because no official version exists, the argument seems to go, the Act must be illegal or unenforceable. This is nonsense of course. An official consolidated version of the Act does exist (see below). Moreover, validity does not require consolidation. Continue reading
I noticed today that the clauses in subparagraph 256(7)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) are missing a conjunction. David Sherman and his team confirmed that Parliament enacted amendments to the subparagraph that omitted the conjunction. In fact, there should be an “or” after clause 256(7)(a)(i)(D). David will be contacting Finance about the omission. Do I get a prize for pointing this out?
“Government Invites Comments on Proposals to Improve the Caseload Management of the Tax Court of Canada”. From the Finance press release: Continue reading
The Minister of Finance has apparently responded positively to submissions from the Canadian Bar Association on the effect of the new reporting regime for tax avoidance transactions on solicitor-client privilege. In a letter to the Association dated January 11, 2011, Minister Flaherty stated that he is “prepared to consider a change to the proposed rules providing explicitly that a lawyer … will not be required to report any specific item of information that the lawyer believes, on reasonable grounds, is subject to solicitor-client privilege.”
The 2010 federal budget was enacted as law yesterday as S.C. 2010, c. 12. Chapter 12 includes the new rules respecting section 116 of the Income Tax Act.
Harmony sounds like something we should all want, even when it comes to taxes. Be that as it may, the Ontario government has created a webpage that discusses the harmonization of its PST with the federal GST.
Lawyers will be familiar with Hare v. Hare, 2006 CanLII 41650, in which the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the limitation period for a demand note began to run with its delivery not with default, much to the consternation of the Ontario bar. The Ontario legislature moved quickly to amend the Limitations Act, 2002 with retroactive effect to January 1, 2004, so that the limitation period begins to run with default. For a useful summary, see this article in The Lawyer’s Weekly.
Paragraph 149.1(4)(c) in my version of the Practitioner’s Income Tax Act (35th edition) is missing an “or” at the end of it. I emailed David Sherman, the PITA editor, about this, and he confirmed that the “or” was missing in S.C. 2007, c. 35 (that is, it’s a Finance error, not a PITA error). He will now add the missing conjunction in square brackets.
Every now and then I spot these errors, or I notice a cross-reference that could be added, and I send an email to David about it. He is usually very responsive (I often receive responses the same day), and he almost always incorporates my suggestions. I know it’s kind of nerdy (“Only ‘kinda’?” I hear you say), but it does improve the quality of what I’m using, which is no doubt why David reacts so favourably to my emails.