Questions? Call 416-367-4222

CASE 1:

Case Issue
CRA’s Collections Division attempted to collect corporate taxes against a shareholder of a dissolved corporation. The collections officer examined bank statements of the corporation obtained directly from the bank and alleged non-arm’s length transfers and proposed to assess the client personally for the income taxes owed under section 160 of the Income Tax Act.

Approach
Our office conducted a line-by-line counter analysis and proved that the transfers were actually repayments of the shareholder’s loans to the corporation by paying legitimate business expenses using his personal credit card.

Result
CRA deemed the proposed assessment of $419,021.22 unwarranted and reduced it to $0 without doing any further evaluation.

CASE 2:

Case Issue
A client was reassessed and denied a previously paid HST new housing rebate.

Approach
We filed an informal-procedure Tax Court appeal on behalf of the client. While waiting for the hearing date to be set, we approached Crown with our theory and evidence of the case. Crown accepted our arguments and agreed to the appeal in full.

Result
The client saved $26,482.51 without the need to proceed to trial.

CASE 3:

Case Issue

The client came to us to represent his corporation, locked out of its premises, pending a Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) appeal in Tax Court. The books and records of the corporation had been seized, so the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) assessed an arbitrary amount of $79,852.83 for the corporation’s GST/HST liability for the relevant period. 

Approach

After going through the records, we discovered the client had been assessed personally as director of the corporation. We filed a notice of objection with the CRA on the basis that the director had been duly diligent in fulfilling the corporation’s tax obligations. The Crown agreed to put the Tax Court appeal of the corporation on hold until the CRA decides on the objection.

Result

The CRA allowed the objection and vacated the liability assessment of $79,852.83 for GST/HST without the need to proceed to expensive litigation.

CASE 4:

Case Issue

A client approached us to handle a denial of more than $1 million in input tax credit (ITC) refunds for the not-for-profit organization. 

Approach

We sent a notice of objection to the Canada Revenue Agency, arguing that the disallowed ITCs involved legitimate businesses offering services to the public. The Appeals Division allowed the objection in part and reassessed the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) of the not-for-profit for the relevant period. 

Result

The client received an ITC refund of $1,413,445.59 and was paid to the corporation.

CASE 5:

Case issue

A client approached Rotfleisch & Samulovitch P.C. and sought tax-planning advice about an imminent $1 million payout from a foreign pension. 

Approach

Rotfleisch & Samulovitch P.C. recommended a payout structure allowing the client and the client’s ex-spouse to divide the pension per their separation agreement and qualify for the RRSP foreign-pension rollover under paragraph 60(j) of the Income Tax Act. 

Result

By following Rotfleisch & Samulovitch P.C.’s advice, they each saved $250,000 in income tax—a total tax savings of $500,000.

CASE 6:

Case issue

A husband and wife asked that we represent them during a CRA income-tax audit. As a result of our submissions, the income-tax auditor reduced the initial proposed taxable income by $145,000. 

Approach

After the audit’s conclusion, we pursued the dispute with the CRA’s Appeals Division. So far, the appeals officer has agreed to reduce the couple’s taxable income by another $386,000 and cancel all $332,000 in gross negligence penalties. 

Result

The objection remains active. But, to date, we have saved the couple from over $265,000 in taxes and $332,000 in gross-negligence fines. They got a total savings of about $597,000, plus a corresponding reduction to the interest previously accrued on the $597,000.

CASE 7:

Case issue

Alleging receipt of unpaid shareholder loans, the CRA increased our client’s taxable income by $567,000. 

Approach

We filed a notice of objection, convincing the CRA appeals officer to reduce the amount by $61,500. We then filed a notice of appeal to the Tax Court of Canada. We secured an additional reduction of $373,000 during a pre-trial settlement with the Canada Revenue Agency and the Department of Justice. 

Result

Our client’s taxable income was reduced by a total of $434,500.

CASE 8:

Case issue

The CRA had incorrectly reassessed the client for an additional $330,400 in taxable income. By the time the client approached Rotfleisch & Samulovitch P.C., he had exceeded the deadline to file a notice of objection or an extension-of-time application. 

Approach

Still, Rotfleisch & Samulovitch P.C. managed to convince the CRA to reassess the impugned tax year yet again, thereby refreshing the deadline to file a notice of objection. The CRA appeals officer ultimately allowed the objection in full. 

Result

The firm reduced the client’s taxable income by $330,400, and the client received an $88,000 tax refund.

CASE 9:

Case issue

Rotfleisch & Samulovitch P.C. filed an informal-procedure Tax Court appeal on behalf of a client’s corporation. 

Approach

During pre-trial settlement negotiations, Rotfleisch & Samulovitch P.C. convinced the Canada Revenue Agency to allow the small-business deduction under the associated-corporation exemption. 

Result

Our client’s corporation avoided $43,700 in corporate income tax.

CASE 10:

Case issue

A client requested Rotfleisch & Samulovitch P.C.’s assistance after the CRA denied ITCs claimed by the client’s corporation. 

Approach

Rotfleisch & Samulovitch P.C. filed a notice of objection and delivered additional legal submissions to the Canada Revenue Agency’s Appeals Division. 

Result

The client saved $35,800 in GST/HST.

CASE 11:

Case issue

A client asked our firm for advice after a GST/HST auditor proposed to apply $174,240 in gross-negligence penalties. 

Approach

We provided the GST/HST auditor with a legal analysis showing that the auditor had misinterpreted the Excise Tax Act’s provisions on gross-negligence penalties. In response, the auditor rescinded the gross-negligence penalties. 

Result

The client avoided the $174,240 and the interest that would have accrued on that amount.

CASE 12:

Case issue

A client approached our firm for representation after a CRA tax auditor proposed to increase his taxable income by $3.2 million. 

Approach

As a result of our legal submissions, the auditor reduced the initial proposed taxable income by $335,000 and cancelled all interests accrued due to the CRA’s delays. 

Result

This dispute remains active.

Get your CRA tax issue solved


Address: Rotfleisch & Samulovitch P.C.
2822 Danforth Avenue Toronto, Ontario M4C 1M1