This webinar, led by tax law experts John Fuller and Kyle, offers fresh insights, case studies, and practical guidance to tackle the intricacies of tax law. Through examinations of cases such as Gaudreau, Foix et. al, and Sleep Country Canada Inc., attendees will gain practical insights into tax law applications across different contexts. Webinar-Covered Cases:

Federation of Law Societies of Canada v. Attorney General of Canada: A challenge to the constitutionality of the mandatory disclosure rules for legal professionals.
Gaudreau v. The King: A dispute over the disclosure of a memo prepared by an accounting firm regarding the tax implications of a hybrid sale of assets and shares.
632738 Alberta Ltd. v. The King: A case on whether the taxpayer waived privilege by disputing an assessment based on the reasons or purposes for a transaction.
Condominium Corp v. Carrington Holdings Inc.: A case on whether the corporate veil can be lifted to hold a parent company liable for the negligence of its subsidiary.
Aubin v. Petrone: A case on whether the corporate veil can be lifted to grant a security interest in a corporation's property to an ex-spouse for spousal support.
6075204 Canada Inc. v. The Queen: A case on whether the Minister can reassess outside of the normal reassessment period when the taxpayer files T2s after being arbitrarily assessed.
Foix et. al. v. Canada: A case on whether subsection 84(2) applies to a hybrid tax plan involving a sale of assets and shares to different purchasers.
Fournier Giguere v. R.: A case on whether a gambling addict who played poker and taught others how to play was carrying on a business.
Duhamel J. v. The Queen: A case on whether a prominent poker player who was hired by Pokerstars to promote poker was carrying on a business.
D’Auteuil v. The King and Berube v. The King: Cases on whether professional Texas Hold’em poker players who had substantial winnings were carrying on business.
Deans Knight Income Corp. v. Canada: A case on whether the GAAR applies to a series of transactions that avoided subsection 111(5) by not changing de jure control of the taxpayer.
Goldhar v. The King: A case on whether reasonable reliance on professional advisors can limit reassessments beyond the normal reassessment period and penalties.
Lauria v. R.: A case on whether subsection 69(1)(b) applies to adjust the sale price of shares sold to family trusts before an IPO.
Sleep Country Canada Inc. v. A.G. of Canada: A case on whether rectification can be granted to correct errors in documents relating to a tax plan.
Canada v. Microbjo Properties Inc.: A case on whether subsection 160(1) applies to indirect transfers of property from one person to another through a trust account.
Murphy v. The King: A case on whether dividends paid by a corporation with an outstanding tax liability are subject to section 160.
Watts v. The King: A case on whether funds transferred from a sole proprietorship to a corporation and then to a trust account for the purchase of a property for the taxpayer are subject to section 160.
Mony Le Roi v. R.: A case on whether section 186(1)(a) applies to dividends received by a beneficiary from a trust that owned shares of a corporation.
Maurice Kissel Family Trust v. R.: A case on whether amounts that cannot be paid under the terms of the trust can be considered to be payable for the purpose of allocating taxable capital gains to beneficiaries.
Preston v. The King: A case on whether section 104(19) applies to deem dividends received by beneficiaries at the time they were paid or at the end of the trust's taxation year.
Polarsat v. The King: A case on whether enhanced investment tax credits can be claimed by a taxpayer that did not qualify as a Canadian-controlled private corporation.
Oddleifson v. Canada: A case on whether an agreement to be bound by the outcome of other cases precludes an appeal by the taxpayer.
Vefghi Holding Corp. et al v. The King: A case on when two corporations are connected for the purpose of Part IV tax when one is owned by beneficiaries of a trust that owns shares of another corporation.
Fransen v. The King: A case on whether willful blindness and gross negligence penalties apply to a taxpayer who claimed fictitious net business losses with the assistance of a dubious tax preparer.