We are a super-boutique Canadian tax and trade law firm, with litigation and planning expertise in tax, trade, GST/HST and customs matters. Our client base is comprised of national and international leaders in almost every industry sector who have come to rely on us for the specific and cost-effective litigation services and advice that we can provide.
When matters cannot be resolved with the governmental authorities to our clients’ satisfaction, we represent them in tax and trade litigation before all relevant courts, and at all levels of court, including before the Tax Court of Canada, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada.
Our tax practice includes a focus on Canada’s GST/HST system, which is a multi-level, value-added taxing system, imposed under Canada's Excise Tax Act (the ETA), and administered by the Canada Revenue Agency (the CRA). The GST applies at a 5% rate federally, and the HST applies an additional provincial component by province, resulting in GST/HST rates ranging from 5% to 15% nationally.
Our Customs and Trade practice focuses on all Canadian issues affecting the movement of goods to and from Canada, including tariff classification, origin, valuation, marking, seizures and ascertained forfeitures, and export controls. Our trade practice also includes assisting clients on NAFTA, and Anti-Dumping & Countervail (SIMA) matters, and much much more.
Our firm has a special focus on direct selling companies. Our firm is truly a “one stop shop” for direct sellers looking to expand into the Canadian marketplace. From tax structuring assistance to help with incorporation, to compliance with Canada’s anti-pyramid laws and provincial consumer protection licensing, we have assisted hundreds of direct selling companies in the Canadian marketplace with their legal compliance, including four of the last six DSA Rising Star Award winners!
increasing the dollar thresholds of the ITC Information Requirements; and
expanding the definition of "intermediary" to include billing agents, such that a recipient can obtain the name and/or GST registration number of a billing agent rather than the underlying vendor in order to support an ITC claim.
Some details of these proposals, which are effective starting April 21, 2021, are set out below.
A New Housing Rebate (“NHR”) is available under ss. 254(2) of the Excise Tax Act (“ETA”) to enable those who qualify to obtain a rebate of GST/HST paid on the purchase of a new residential property. To qualify para. 254(2)(b) says a “particular individual” must acquire a property for use as a primary place of residence of that individual or a family member.
In Cheema v. The Queen, 2016 TCC 251, the Tax Court of Canada (“TCC”) held that based on the general principle that a bare trust is considered a non-entity for tax purposes, a guarantor that signs an agreement of purchase and sale as a bare trustee for the beneficial owners was not a “particular individual”.
The TCC decision was recently overturned by the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) in Cheema v. The Queen, 2018 FCA 45 (“Cheema”) where a 2-1 majority held that a bare trustee was a “particular individual”.
In the recent case of Club Intrawest v. Her Majesty the Queen (2017 FCA 151), the Federal Court of Appeal (the "FCA") was faced with a unique fact pattern not contemplated by the legislation. In dealing with this unusual situation, the FCA did what common law courts do best, and improvised a solution which it considered both fair and legally justifiable. In the process, the FCA has introduced a new gloss on the common law "single versus multiple supply analysis" and held that even where a recipient is only charged a single amount of consideration, a court may nevertheless find that there were two separate supplies, each with different tax treatment.
The recent Tax Court decision in Persepolis Contracting (2017 TCC 89) is another example of how the concept of agency is so important in the GST context. The case serves as a reminder that written documents will be central to the determination of whether an agency relationship exists, and suggests that it might be difficult to establish that written agreements constitute evidence of agency.
An undisclosed agency exists if an agent enters into a contract with a third party on behalf of a principal, but does not reveal to the third party either the identity of the principal or the fact that the agent is acting on behalf of any principal.
