August 24, 2011

The Tax Court and expanded jurisdiction

1:06

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.

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

The Tax Court and expanded jurisdiction

Contact

Subscribe

Stay current with our latest insights.

Related Insights

The Tax Court and expanded jurisdiction

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.