The Canada Revenue Agency Appeals Branch provided our firm with the following statistics related to the number of tax dispute and tax litigation files along with the rates of settlement, withdrawal and adjudication.
In June 2012, the CRA reported that:
the CRA Appeals Branch receives between 80,000 and 110,000 notices of objection to dispute tax reassessments;
approximately 90% of taxpayer notices of objection relate to income tax matters;
approximately 92% of notices of objection are resolved at the objection stage (Nota bene. The CRA did not define “resolved” and the meaning of “resolved” is unclear e.g., the CRA did not break-out the percentage of taxpayers who abandoned their files and the percentage taxpayers who were successful in whole or in part and decided to discontinue their tax appeal);
in or about 8% of taxpayers who filed notices of objections to reassessments chose to appeal the CRA’s decision to the Tax Court of Canada; and
in or about 1/3 of the appeals in the Tax Court are abandoned, 1/3 are settled and 1/3 are adjudicated.
Quebecor v. HMK underscores that CRA challenges to loss consolidation hinge on interpretation over mechanics and on whether the outcome aligns with Parliament’s intent.
A clear view into how courts choose between competing case theories in tax disputes, and why the business’s real decision environment often shapes the interpretation and outcome.
Wuswig v. HMK confirms that under GAAR, economic substance and credible purpose, not mechanical compliance, determine whether corporate losses will stand.
Analysis of the Husky Energy withholding dispute and how courts chose among competing case theories by aligning structure, operations, and cross-border reporting.
CRA’s audit architecture drives reassessments that behave like capital market shocks inside private companies. This article examines the structural forces at play and how executives maintain control once CRA formalizes its position.
A Tax Court ruling highlights how enhanced costs, weak CRA assumptions, and procedural precision shape the financial outcomes of high-stakes tax disputes — and why independent oversight changes both incentives and results.
Peter Aprile is a very hands on and practical tax lawyer who is very focused and diligent. He is a pleasure to work with.
- Susan Farina, Tax Partner, Price Waterhouse Coopers
What Clients Say
I’m a Senior VP with an accounting and finance background. I’ve worked with lawyers and large law firms. I was referred to Counter to fix a tax dispute. It is very rare to encounter lawyers that combine expertise, dedication, and a businesslike approach to litigation. I have no hesitation in recommending Counter.
- David Cuddy, Senior Vice-President, Finance & Business Operations, CFL
What Accountants Say
Counter Tax Litigators has worked with Fuller Landau to resolve several of our clients’ tax disputes. Counter delivers superior communication.
- Laura Couvrette, CPA, CA, Fuller Landau LLP
What Clients Say
I spent a good part of my career dealing with attorneys on innumerable matters, and found Peter to be extremely competent, open-minded and exceptionally honest. I would not hesitate to use Peter again, and highly recommend the team at Counter Tax Litigators.
- Mark Ram, Retired CEO
What Clients Say
Counter’s representation on our behalf was well informed, professional and efficient, which ultimately resulted in a highly satisfactory decision in all aspects.
- Klaus W. Reif, President, Reif Estate Winery
What Clients Say
I was amazed with the results. They went above and beyond, and I would recommend Counter to any person or business with a significant tax dispute.
For nearly 20 years, our leadership in Canadian tax controversy and litigation has earned consistent recognition for expertise, results, and client trust.