cra1

The case my family had refused to settle out of court was one that had 3 legal entities as defendants, 2 of which were told to pay 1 sum.

In my opinion, the deputy judge did not appear to understand that given a percentage blame was not allocated to each legal entity (the case would have had to be heard for that), these 2 legal entities could not properly report their taxes since personal and business expenses could NOT be mixed on tax returns - they had to appear as separate line items... and the "lumping of the two" was NOT a precedent that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) was very likely to allow! :o)

As such, "Cassidy's Calamity" and the precedent it could set if allowed to stand had implications even for the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and all taxpayers!

Also, if $10,000.00 of what was paid to me was paid by a party not even a defendant in the lawsuit but one that had a "great interest" in seeing it "settled", would that $10,000.00 need to be recognized as "revenue" by the defendant who was told by the court to pay the damages awarded.

Likewise, would that "third party" that was NOT part of the lawsuit but had a tremendous interest in seeing it settled not have to disclose a potential "material fact" to its shareholders since this "third party" felt "the need" to interject itself into a lawsuit in which it was not even named as a defendant?

What tangled webs we weave... via "kangaroo courts"...