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.
.jpg?width=120&name=Counter%20Tax%20Litigators%20Logo%20Stacked%20(MidnightBlue%20on%20White).jpg)
The Tax Court’s Bench and Bar Committee and the Canadian Bar Association’s Tax and Charities sections have sponsored a new resolution proposing that the Canadian Bar Association renew its efforts to persuade Parliament to expand the Tax Court of Canada’s exclusive jurisdiction for all tax-related matters including judicial review of the Minister of National Revenue’s and the Canada Revenue Agency’s discretionary decisions under the voluntary disclosure program and the taxpayer relief provisions.
Supporters of the resolution believe that consolidating all tax matters within a specialized and expert court will improve cost, efficiency and service to taxpayers. Critics believe that the Federal Court provides good service to taxpayers and warn that the proposed change is a major substantive change.
We believe that this debate is important and any discussion that may lead to improved service, efficiency and access to justice in tax matters is gladly received. Unfortunately, the Canadian Bar Association’s governing council has decided to postpone its voting on the resolution until its next meeting in February 2012.
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.
What Accountants Say
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.
- Brian Grott, Northland Screen Corp