|
Federal Tax - General. Osadchuk v. Canada
In Osadchuk v. Canada (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal addressed an Income Tax appeal when the appellant argued that: "he is a free human being who cannot, without his consent, be recognized as a person under the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), and required to pay income taxes." He lost.
. Nagel v. Canada
In Nagel v. Canada (Fed CA, 2022) the Federal Court of Appeal considers the difference between a 'nil assessment' and a notice of assessment:[11] An appeal to the Tax Court lies from an assessment or reassessment of tax, interest or penalties imposed under the Income Tax Act and from certain determinations made under the Income Tax Act, including a determination of eligibility for GST credits. Although a notice no tax is payable is frequently sent on a document labelled "“notice of assessment”", it is not an assessment. The Income Tax Act distinguishes between an assessment and a notice no tax is payable. No appeal lies from a notice no tax is payable—often referred to as a nil assessment: Canada v. Interior Savings Credit Union, 2007 FCA 151, at para. 15. . Canada v. Loblaw Financial Holdings Inc.
In Canada v. Loblaw Financial Holdings Inc. (SCC, 2021) the Supreme Court of Canada (in my view, bizarrely) contrasts the capitalization of a business with the actual conduct of that business, to make sure we don't equate them (maybe it's a tax thing):[46] Raising capital is a necessary part of any business, and capital enables business to be conducted. But one would not generally speak of capitalization itself as the conduct of the business. Our Court has repeatedly affirmed that there is a distinction between capitalization and the conduct of a business. As Justice Rand wrote, “[t]he capital machinery within and by means of which the business earning the income is carried on is distinct from that business itself” (Tip Top Tailors Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, 1957 CanLII 71 (SCC), [1957] S.C.R. 703, at p. 710; see also, Bennett & White Construction Co., at pp. 290-92). In Montreal Coke and Manufacturing Co. v. Minister of National Revenue, 1944 CanLII 385 (UK JCPC), [1944] A.C. 126 (P.C.), Lord Macmillan similarly stated: “Of course, like other business people, they must have capital to enable them to conduct their enterprises, but their financial arrangements are quite distinct from the activities by which they earn their income” (at p. 134). In fact, it would be quite unnatural to speak of a corporation as conducting business with its shareholders or lenders. A more natural reading of the phrase was provided by the Canada Revenue Agency’s (“CRA”) Rulings Directorate in 2000, when it said:. . . we consider business generally to be conducted with business clients and business clients are generally persons for whom services are performed or to whom products are sold in exchange for monetary consideration. A person who invests funds in the shares of a corporation or loans funds to the corporation is generally not considered a client of the corporation’s business. [Emphasis added.]
(Foreign Affiliates — Investment Business, Ruling No. 2000-0006565, June 22, 2000)
|
