CRA LETTER TO CLASS COUNSEL RECEIVED FROM MC TODAY REFERENCE TAX IMPLICATIONS FOR 2013

And a big thanks to all members for posting their comments, and providing their input, and info today, I feel that we have accomplished a great deal today, we now know more today than we did yesterday. I realize the frustration that is placed upon us with this whole tax issue, I for one would like to get as much information as possible before the day comes for filling our taxes. I appreciate being able to come on here, and share our thoughts on this issue together.

5. para 8(1)(b) of the act is replaced by the following:
amounts paid by the taxpayer in the year as or on account of legal expenses incurred
by the taxpayer to collect, or to establish a right to, an amount owed to the taxpayer that,
if received by the taxpayer, would be required by this subdivision to be included in com-
puting the taxpayer’s income.

This right from the tax act.

Now it is official the full amount of Legal fees can be claimed.

Carver thanks for asking my two questions to the Law firm, very much appreciated, however no need for it now, as I have now both my questions answered.

ltd all we can do about the deemed tax is to sill out a RC4288 E (11) request for tax payer relief form and send it in with our tax return. it will likely be refused as by the ITA definition the notional amount of interest is not interest but in fact deemed tax therefore does not qualify. also it only allows for mistakes ore delays by the CRA not the GOC. yes I know it doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the GOC to the CRA ore equate the notional amount of interest to interest lol but the legal language in the act and its regulations does separate them.

a rejection letter will be all you need if some crazy fracker decides to launch a judicial review of the fairness provision of the act and wins.

10 minuets to fill it out your if you choose.

always question authority

propat

No probs Trooper.

Teen, you are absolutely correct LTD is placed on Line 104 as other employment income, so I stand corrected, thanks for the clarification Teen.

LTD4me, I do believe that the above letter is the response from the CRA to counsel, saying that we are good to go for claiming our Legal fees.

WOW wait a minute this letter is dated FEB 12 2013, has anyone inquired to MC if they had actually received a COMFORT letter as described in the memorandum of fact and law dated 11 JAN 2013 on page 32 para 150 in particular where it states "The Defendant has agreed to ask the cra whether they can provide a comfort letter on this point"

So it is confirmed, "A notional amount of interest is added to the additional taxes" if the income is claimed over the years it should have been paid vs in year 2013, and the interest can only be claimed in year 2013. Some fracken comfort letter way to go CRA, but no big surprise. I guess our ONLY recourse for some tax relief would be that the Minister may grant relief from penalty or interest, as described in my previous post back a year ago on 19 feb 2013 (https://csat.forumotion.com/t1636-minister-may-grant-relief-from-penalty-or-interest#19033) which shows a link to this site http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/cmplntsdspts/cnclwvpnlty/menu-eng.html

LTD is employment income trooper.

We must understand the Language they used here. " It is in our view that the Legal fees paid in the year by a Class member could be deducted from the Class member's employment income in that year.

Key words ( EMPLOYMENT INCOME )

How many of us have employment income ? I don't. So if I am correct this letter will not benefit me, unless I'm missing something.