We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 629

The elusive exemption from taxation on investment income under the Indian Act

  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • June 22 2009

When the right to vote in federal elections was finally extended to status Indians in 1960, many First Nation leaders were concerned that this would lead to an erosion of treaty rights and legislative protections including, specifically, the protection from taxation and seizure of personal property under ss. 87 and 89 of the Indian Act

U.S. LLCs should consider refund claims for branch tax paid to Canada

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada, USA
  • -
  • July 22 2010

On April 8, 2010, the Tax Court of Canada found in favour of the taxpayer in TD Securities (USA) LLC v. The Queen

Deductibility of farm losses from a horse racing venture

  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 12 2007

Generally, a taxpayer who incurs losses from the operation of a business is entitled to deduct these losses from other income. Subsection 31(1) of the Income Tax Act provides an exception to this rule in the case of farming losses

Using contract law to fix tax (and other) mistakes: the Supreme Court of Canada recognizes a rectification-like remedy under Quebec law

  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • December 2 2013

A taxpayer intends to undertake a transaction on a tax-efficient basis. But the transaction gets papered wrong, and the intended tax treatment is not

Lipson’s "spousal twist" subject to GAAR

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • January 13 2009

On January 8, 2009, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (4:3) dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal in Lipson v. The Queen. The facts in Lipson were similar to the facts of the Singleton case (which was decided by the Supreme Court in favour of the taxpayer); however, Lipson involved the transfer of company shares between spouses financed with borrowed funds secured against the taxpayer’s residence which triggered the application of the spousal attribution rules

Casa Blanca Homes Ltd. v. The Queen: the transfer of a promise to purchase land, and the related non-refundable deposit, constitute two distinct supplies for GSTHST purposes

  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • December 20 2013

In a decision rendered on October 25, 20131, the Tax Court of Canada (the "Court"), in the person of Justice Robert J. Hogan, clarified whether a

Taxpayer entitled to disclosure of the “policy” underlying statutory provisions allegedly abused in GAAR cases

  • Dentons
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • January 28 2013

On December 20, 2012, the Tax Court ruled on a motion under Rule 52 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (the "Rules") to require the

Successful challenge to portions of the Crown’s reply on the deductibility of amounts paid by CIBC to settle ENRON litigation

  • Dentons
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • January 1 2012

On December 19, 2011, the Tax Court partially granted an application by Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (2011 TCC 568

Eligible dividends and Subsection 55(2)

  • Dentons
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • June 21 2012

At various Round Tables, including the 2010 Canadian Tax Foundation National Conference Round Table, the Canada Revenue Agency has indicated that an eligible dividend received by a corporation that is deemed to be a capital gain or proceeds of disposition pursuant to subsection 55(2) will not increase the general rate income pool (“GRIP”) of the recipient, but will reduce the GRIP of the payer

Taxpayer loses “break fee” appeal

  • Thorsteinssons LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • December 2 2012

In Morguard Corporation v. The Queen, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) upheld the Tax Court of Canada decision that a “break fee” received on an attempted acquisition of a target company was ordinary income to the recipient