General rule was that parties should be bound by agreements that they made

Tax – Income Tax – Losses

Taxpayer was successor of corporations by amalgamation, and these corporations incurred substantial non-capital losses during period from 1999 to 2002. These losses were carried forward, including to 2007 taxation years. Minister reassessed 2007 taxation years and reduced carry forward amounts, because Minister took view that predecessors had incorrectly deducted rental obligations and therefore non-capital losses available for carry forward were much less than amounts claimed by taxpayer. In 2013, taxpayer appealed Minister's reassessments and in 2014, taxpayer made offer to settle appeal. Taxpayer's offer was to accept disallowance of rent deductions, and resulting reduced non-capital loss carry forwards, and to apply carry forwards to taxation years from 2002 to 2007 in manner that resulted in additional carry forward of $24 million being available in taxation year ending March 2007. Minister accepted settlement but then discovered that there were no non-capital losses available for carry forward for tax years under appeal and asked taxpayer to provide support for claim that loss carry forward was available. Taxpayer brought successful motion to allow its appeal for 2007 taxation years in accordance with settlement agreement. Tax court agreed with taxpayer's position and concluded that non-capital losses were available for carry forward, and settlement agreement was therefore binding, valid and enforceable against Minister. Minister appealed. Appeal dismissed. General rule was that parties should be bound by agreements that they made, and there was no good reason to create exception in this case. It was taxpayer, and not Crown, that sought order requiring reassessment that might give rise to increase in tax, accordingly, Harris principle had no application on these facts and could not serve to prevent appeal being allowed in accordance with settlement agreement.

Her Majesty the Queen v. CBS Canada Holdings Co (2020), 2020 CarswellNat 51, 2020 FCA 4, J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A., Judith Woods J.A., and J.B. Laskin J.A. (F.C.A.); affirmed (2018), 2018 CarswellNat 5238, 2018 TCC 188, K. Lyons J. (T.C.C. [General Procedure]).

Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca

Free newsletter

Our newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

Benchers defend status quo for equity partners, decline to censure social media critics

Law society's 4-year plan: Avoid rules that are inappropriate or blown out of proportion

Ontario Court of Justice adds two new Justices of the Peace: Andres and Woods

Ombudsman calls out ‘sub-standard’ CRA for delays

All US law schools now use WestLaw Edge, says Thomson Reuters

Firm warns lawyers: Careful what you say using a rideshare

Most Read Articles

Law society could dismantle another equity provision, bencher says

Firm warns lawyers: Careful what you say using a rideshare

Lawyer allegedly tied to Vaughan Working Families ads

Law society's 4-year plan: Avoid rules that are inappropriate or blown out of proportion