12 result(s)
-
1.
Geransky v. The Queen - 2001-02-19
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsIncome Tax Act
Geransky v. The Queen, Geransky c. La Reine, 98-2383-IT-G Date: 20010219 [...] DENNIS GERANSKY, Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent. [...] DENNIS GERANSKY, Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent.
-
2.
Tremblay v. The Queen - 2009 TCC 6 - 2009-01-08
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsIncome Tax Act
· Geransky v. Canada, [2001] T.C.J. No. 103 · McMullen v. Canada, 2007 TCC 16 [...] [39] Judge Bowman once again found himself having to rule on the application of subsection 84(2) of the Act in Geransky, supra. [...] [44] Counsel for the appellants referred to the following decisions in addition to Geransky, supra, McNichol, supra and RMM Canadian Enterprises Inc., supra:
-
3.
Jabin Investments Ltd. v. The Queen - 2001-11-15
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsIncome Tax Act
Counsel submitted that attempting to retroactively apply the new section 80 was an improper use of section 245, relying on the words on Bowman, A.C.J.T.C. in Geransky v. The Queen, 2001 DTC 243 where he stated at page 250: [...] [31] Counsel for the Respondent stated that the Crown was not attempting to re-characterize the transactions, as was the case in Geransky, supra and Canadian Pacific, supra.
-
4.
McMullen v. The Queen - 2007 TCC 16 - 2007-01-22
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsIncome Tax Act
(See for example the case of Geransky v. R., 2001 CarswellNat 272, in which the cessation of a significant portion of a business and the resulting sale of the cement manufacturing assets to a third party did not constitute, in this Court's view, a reorganization within the meaning of subsection 84(2) of the Act.) The fact [...] Associate Chief Judge Bowman's observation in Geransky, supra, at paragraph 35, applies here: the appellant did not extract $150,000 from DEL; he sold shares for $150,000.
-
5.
McClarty Family Trust v. The Queen - 2012 TCC 80 - 2012-03-21
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsIncome Tax Act
This is an inappropriate use of the GAAR, as noted by Bowman A.C.J. in Geransky v. The Queen:
-
6.
Mathew v. The Queen - 2002-05-03
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsIncome Tax Act
[142] Relying on the reasons delivered by this Court in a number of cases, namely Husky Oil, supra, Canadian Pacific (TCC), supra, Jabs Construction, supra,and Geransky, supra, counsel for the Appellants contended that the GAAR should not apply where a real and substantial business underlies the impugned transactions. [...] [157] Relying on The Oxford English Dictionary and on Husky Oil, supra, Canadian Pacific (TCC), supra, Jabs Construction, supra, and Geransky, supra, counsel for the Appellants submitted that the word "primarily" puts the emphasis on the root transaction. [...] [174] Moreover, counsel for the Appellants submitted that Judge Bowman confirmed in Geransky, supra, that the GAAR is not meant to limit a taxpayer's choices.
-
7.
Spruce Credit Union v. The Queen - 2012 TCC 357 - 2012-10-15
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsIncome Tax Act
See, for example, former Chief Justice Bowman’s decision in Geransky v. Canada, 2001 DTC 243.
-
8.
Landrus v. The Queen - 2008 TCC 274 - 2007-05-02
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsIncome Tax Act
This is an inappropriate use of the GAAR, as noted by Bowman A.C.J. in Geransky v. The Queen: [20]
-
9.
Gwartz v. The Queen - 2013 TCC 86 - 2013-05-01
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsIncome Tax Act
This is an inappropriate use of the GAAR, as noted by Bowman A.C.J. in Geransky v. R.:
-
10.
Collins & Aikman Products Co. v. The Queen - 2009 TCC 299 - 2009-06-03
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsIncome Tax Act
To do so was entirely legitimate, consistent with the principles of Inland Revenue Commissioner v. Duke of Westminster, [1936] A.C. 1 (H.L.), and is similar to the situation in which the taxpayer in Geransky v. The Queen, 2001 DTC 243, found himself.
-
11.
MacDonald v. The Queen - 2012 TCC 123 - 2012-04-17
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsIncome Tax Act
[35] In Geransky v. R., 2001 DTC 243, Bowman J. as he then was said where a taxpayer avoids specific anti-avoidance provisions, the Minister cannot subsequently use GAAR to fill uncovered gaps in the Act. This approach was confirmed post-Canada Trustco in Landrus v. R., 2008 TCC 274, aff’d 2009 FCA 113.
-
12.
MIL (Investments) S A v. The Queen - 2006 TCC 460 - 2006-08-18
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsIncome Tax Act
[54] This finding is consistent with the established jurisprudence on the legitimacy of seeking out tax planning, for example, Geransky v. H.M.Q., 2001 DTC 243 established that: