Effective. Accessible. Responsive
The following article appeared in a recent edition of the Hamilton Law Association Law Journal.
The police execute a search at your client’s house. They find pot plants and a large amount of cash. They seize the cash and charge your client with trafficking, and he is later convicted of that crime.
In Danso-Coffey v. Ontario, 2010 ONCA 171, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered whether Ontario could assess and collect tax from an individual who was supposedly a director of a corporation when, it turned out, she wasn’t. The Court concluded that Ontario could assess and collect the tax if the individual failed to follow the appropriate procedures in the Retail Sales Tax Act (the “RSTA”) for disputing the assessment.
In Sorbara v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 ONCA 506, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to hear an application relating to liabilty for GST under the Excise Tax Act (Canada). Parliament has given exclusive jurisdiction over that kind of question to the Tax Court of Canada. The appellant’s application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed with costs (2009 CanLII 61389).
If the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) challenges your return and you can’t afford a tax lawyer, how likely are you to win your case? Does hiring a lawyer help your chances?
Mr. Mortensen was convicted of tax evasion in respect of some commissions he earned but failed to report. He filed an appeal with the Tax Court, and the Crown responded by bringing a motion to dismiss the appeal. The taxpayer, the Crown argued, shouldn’t be permitted to contest the tax owing and the gross negligence penalties imposed in respect of amounts for which he had been convicted of evasion.
In Rezler v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 609, the taxpayer made excess contributions to her RRSP. On appeal, the Tax Court judge responded as follows:
Tax Topics number 1984 (March 18, 2010) has an interesting article on estate freezes using partnerships in light of Krauss v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 597.
Assume that A and B, who deal at arms length, own 55 and 20 common shares in the capital of Opco respectively. A and B also own 95 and 5 common shares in the capital of Holdco respectively. Assume that B’s tax adviser suggests to her that she can sell her common shares in the capital of Opco to Holdco for a purchase price equal to $400,000 cash. What could possibly go wrong? See Emory v. The Queen, 2010 TCC 71, for the answer to that question.