November 12, 2011

Proposals to improve the Tax Court of Canada

0:55

The Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada have invited the public to comment on proposed changes to the Tax Court of Canada’s Rules.

If adopted, the proposals would:

increase the Tax Court’s Informal Procedure limit to $25,000 or where a loss does not exceed $50,000 (the current limit is $12,000 or to $24,000 for a loss);
allow the Tax Court to resolve issues independently; and
provide a decision that bind a group of appeals regarding substantially similar transactions.

The Department of Finance may release draft legislation related to the proposals.

The deadline for submissions is December 16, 2011.

Interested readers can read the official news release Government Invites Comments on Proposals to Improve the Caseload Management of the Tax Court of Canada.

Insights

Counter Sphere 1 Image, with “Management’s First Conversation with the Board in a CRA Dispute” title text, Counter Tax Litigators LLP: judgment-driven advocacy in high-stakes tax litigation.

The first board conversation in a CRA dispute happens before clarity. This insight explains how early framing shapes control, narrows options, and influences how boards judge management under pressure.

Counter Sphere 1 Image, with “System Advantage and Late-Shifting Positions in Transfer Pricing Disputes ” title text, Counter Tax Litigators LLP: judgment-driven advocacy in high-stakes tax litigation.

Redpath shows how transfer pricing disputes can shift late. Strategic venue choice counters systemic advantage and protects business strategy.

Counter Sphere 1 Image, with “Loss Consolidation Under GAAR: When Interpretation and Judgement Decide the Outcome” title text, Counter Tax Litigators LLP: disciplined litigation for critical tax disputes.

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.

Counter Sphere 1 Image, with “How Courts Decide When a Transaction Can Be Read Two Ways” title text, Counter Tax Litigators LLP: judgment-driven advocacy in high-stakes tax litigation.

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.

Counter Sphere 1 Image, with “When Corporate Losses Require More Than Mechanics” title text, judgment-driven advocacy for CEOs and CFOs managing high-stakes CRA disputes

Wuswig v. HMK confirms that under GAAR, economic substance and credible purpose, not mechanical compliance, determine whether corporate losses will stand.

Counter Sphere 1 Image, with “Control and Economic Reality in Cross-Border Dividend Disputes” title text, Counter Tax Litigators LLP: disciplined litigation for critical tax disputes.

Analysis of the Husky Energy withholding dispute and how courts chose among competing case theories by aligning structure, operations, and cross-border reporting.

Explore more insights >

Contact

Initiate an inquiry

Proposals to improve the Tax Court of Canada

Contact

Subscribe

Stay current with our latest insights.

Related Insights

Proposals to improve the Tax Court of Canada

Insights

Management’s First Conversation with the Board in a CRA Dispute

System Advantage and Late-Shifting Positions in Transfer Pricing Disputes

Loss Consolidation Under GAAR: When Interpretation and Judgement Decide the Outcome

How Courts Decide When a Transaction Can Be Read Two Ways

When Corporate Losses Require More Than Mechanics

Control and Economic Reality in Cross-Border Dividend Disputes

Contact

Subscribe

Stay current with our latest insights.