Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Northcut v. Ontario (Minister of Finance), 184-17
The Minister raised a director’s liability assessment for unpaid taxes under the Retail Sales Tax Act. The taxpayer had effectively resigned more than two years prior to the aforementioned assessment being issued. By way of consent, the Minister vacated the assessment and revoked all legal action.
Tax Court of Canada
Juriansz v. HMQ, 2015-3945(IT)G
The Appellant was audited by the CRA for the disposition of two properties and the Minister erroneously concluded that both were sold on account of business. Furthermore, the Minister imposed gross negligence penalties for failing to report the above. RKTL successfully negotiated an early resolution wherein our client was entitled to the principle exemption on one of the properties and the other disposition was on account of capital. The gross negligence penalties were vacated and the GST/HST implications were removed entirely.
Sakaria v. HMQ, 2016-237(IT)G
The Canada Revenue Agency issued an assessment, pursuant to subsection 160(2) of the Income Tax Act, against the taxpayer for an unpaid tax liability of a relative. In exchange for title to a property, the taxpayer forgave previous loans that were advanced. The Tax Court of Canada agreed that debt forgiveness was valid consideration and as such the appeal was allowed, significantly reducing the assessed tax liability.
Chan v. HMQ, 2016-5049(IT)G
The taxpayer came to us in 2016 after the Canada Revenue Agency reassessed him based on the purchase and sale of a home. The CRA disallowed his Principal Residence claim, and reassessed him charging him for business income and gross negligence penalties because he had only lived in the home for a few months. The amount owing was $75,000. Rosen Kirshen Tax Law filed a Notice of Appeal in the Tax Court of Canada, and aggressively pursued the case knowing that he should be entitled to the Principal Residence Exemption. A few weeks before trial, we were successful in overturning the CRA decision. He has now been reassessed owing no taxes or penalties and is being allowed his Principal Residence Claim.
Browne v. HMQ, 2017-3734(GST)I
The taxpayer was denied the New Home Housing Rebate because she moved out of her condominium shortly after purchase. The taxpayer appealed the audit decision, but could not convince the Canada Revenue Agency appeals division that she was entitled to the Rebate. We filed an appeal to the Tax Court of Canada. Following receipt of the Reply, we submitted a settlement offer explaining why our client deserves the Rebate. The Department of Justice agreed, and convinced their client, the CRA to allow the appeal. The taxpayer is fully entitled to the New Home Housing Rebate and has received her Rebate in full.
Vresky v. HMQ, 2017-3781(GST)I
The taxpayer was denied the New Home Housing Rebate following an audit. The taxpayer objected but was not successful in with the Canada Revenue Agency appeals division. Rosen Kirshen Tax Law filed an appeal to the Tax Court of Canada. After reading our Notice of Appeal, the Department of Justice did not reply, thereby conceding. The taxpayer has now received the New Home Housing Rebate in full.
Ouriadko v. HMQ, 2011-1534(IT)G
The taxpayer had three different lawyers during her Tax Court of Canada appeal which spanned over a period of 6 years. She came to Rosen Kirshen Tax Law three weeks prior to her scheduled hearing. We were able to settle with the Department of Justice turning her business income into capital gains, and lowering her profit by over $150,000.
The taxpayers were assessed for unreported business income and associated shareholder benefits from a net worth audit. Rosen Kirshen Tax Law was able to reduce the unreported income and shareholder benefits by over $380,000 having the appeal allowed in full. Since the taxpayers chose to pay the bill prior to fighting the assessments, they will be receiving a refund of over $100,000 plus interest.
Grguric v. HMQ, 2016-4945(IT)G
The taxpayer claimed the Principal Residence Exemption on the sale of his condominium. The Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) reassessed him on the basis that the sale of the property should be counted as business income, and gross negligence penalties were assessed as well. Rosen Kirshen Tax Law fought, and the taxpayer’s appeal was allowed in full. He was able to use the Principal Residence Exemption to pay no taxes on the sale, and no penalties were charged.
Leung v. HMQ, 2016-3331(IT)G
The taxpayer claimed the Principal Residence Exemption on the sale of his townhouse. The CRA reassessed him on the basis that the sale of the property should be counted as business income, and gross negligence penalties were assessed as well. Rosen Kirshen Tax Law was able to get a consent to judgement allowing the taxpayer’s appeal in full. He was able to use the Principal Residence Exemption to pay no taxes on the sale, and no penalties were charged.
Kasik v. HMQ, 2016-3166(IT)I
The taxpayer was claiming business expenses incurred for the purposes of gaining or producing income. CRA denied the expenses associated with her endeavors in the entertainment and real estate industries since the taxpayer did not generate any revenue. The taxpayer, by way of consent, was allowed to deduct additional expenses of $25,213, amounting to 70% of the claimed expenditures, in the applicable taxation years.
Lu v. HMQ, 2016-2414(IT)I
The taxpayer was managing a multiplex and generating rental income. The CRA denied a vast majority of the expenses associated with the rental property. Ultimately, by way of consent, the taxpayer was allowed expenses totaling $48,652.33. More importantly, the gross negligence penalties were vacated.
Enghbalkah v. HMQ, 2015-4704(IT)I
This involved the disposition of real estate, mainly the taxpayer’s principal residence. Gross negligence penalties were vacated and no costs were awarded.
Kara v. HMQ, 2015-2217(IT)G
The taxpayer claimed a multi-million dollar capital loss on an investment that went bankrupt. The CRA refused to allow the capital loss. Rosen Kirshen Tax Law was able to get a consent to judgement allowing a massive, multi-million dollar capital loss that the taxpayer will now use to shelter capital gains for years to come.
Gingell v. MNR, T-1283-16
The taxpayer had applied for relief from interest and penalties under the fairness provisions. She was denied twice by the CRA. Rosen Kirshen Tax Law brought a judicial review application questioning the administrative decision to deny the requested relief. The Honourable Justice Campbell found in our favour, particularily that the CRA failed to conduct a full examination of the taxpayer’s circumstances and submission. The matter was referred back to the CRA for a fresh review and costs were awarded in favour of the taxpayer.
Lee v. MNR, T-1884-17
In the early 1990s, Mr. Lee applied to the Canada Revenue Agency requesting an advanced ruling on an vehicle export business he operated, indicating that he would not be liable for GST if he followed several conditions. After running the business for several years and complying with this ruling, he was audited, and after receiving poor advice from his auditor, missed the deadline to respond. He applied for Taxpayer Relief in 2015 to waive some of the related penalties and interest. Following the denial of taxpayer relief, Rosen Kirshen Tax Law applied for Judicial Review in Federal Court. We negotiated with the Department of Justice, and the application was allowed. Mr. Lee was entitled to further relief from the Canada Revenue Agency.
Federal Court of Appeal
Boroumand v. HMQ, 2016 FCA 313
The taxpayer was assessed under the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act for unreported income of over $3.5 million. The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal after not allowing evidence to be presented as it did not meet the rules of evidence. As such, the taxpayer could not demonstrate that the source of the unreported funds was not taxable (it was claimed that the funds were transfers of an inheritance from Iran).
Rosen Kirshen Tax Law appealed the evidentiary ruling to the Federal Court of Appeal. Though the Justices agreed with our position, they ultimately ruled that the Tax Court Judge was correct in her ruling because of the evidentiary issues at the Tax Court trial. Nothing could have been done at the Federal Court of Appeal to overcome these initial issues.
Please note that these are past results. All Court matters must be reviewed on an individual basis so that we may determine your prospects for success. Contact us today to learn more.