Contents. 1 View from the bridge

Transcription

1 April 2017 News from the North Tax Policy and Controversy Prepared by EY Canada s Tax Policy and Controversy Practice, News from the North is a periodic publication that summarizes recent tax administrative, legislative and case developments of interest to multinational corporations investing in Canada. For more information, please contact your EY advisor. Contents 1 View from the bridge 3 The Canada Revenue Agency has been busy. Have you been paying attention? 6 Canadian Government grants and incentives 8 Canadian tax authority succeeds in obtaining lawyer s tax memo denying the existence of common interest privilege outside litigation context 10 Cross-border GST and customs issues

2 View from the bridge Our April 2016 issue reported on the federal Liberal government s first budget, which was tabled in the House of Commons on 22 March The government delivered its second budget on 22 March 2017, but two earlier events are worthy of comment as a preamble before reporting on it here: first, the updated fiscal projections contained in Finance Minister Bill Morneau s fall economic statement, released on 1 November 2016, and second, the arrival of the new US administration (and its potential implications for Canada and for cross-border businesses). The 2016 fall economic statement reflected a more pessimistic outlook for the Canadian economy than was forecasted in the 2016 budget. Expected real GDP growth in 2016 was downgraded to a tepid 1.2% from 1.4% in the budget, and to 1.7% from 1.9% over the five-year period Projections for the already large federal budgetary deficit, meanwhile, were revised upward, by $1.7 billion for fiscal year , $4.8 billion for FY and $9.2 billion for FY This small storm cloud on the horizon was completely overshadowed and eclipsed exactly one week later by the election of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States. Prime Minister Trudeau and President Obama had enjoyed a brief but close personal relationship and their governments were aligned on many major policy areas. In contrast, the incoming Trump administration has charted a very different course in a number of areas affecting the bilateral relationship, including trade, climate change and the environment, taxation and immigration. Of most immediate concern to Canada is President Trump s strong protectionist stance and his demand to reopen existing multilateral trade agreements and oppose new ones. Successive Canadian governments, both Conservative and Liberal, have been strong proponents of free trade, including the current North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the proposed but now defunct Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Canada also recently signed the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) after seven years of negotiations. Early signs from the Trump administration are that Mexico is the main target in renegotiating NAFTA and that the existing terms and balance of trade with Canada are less of a concern. This may be somewhat reassuring to Canada, but the signals have been mixed, and when it comes to trade negotiations, experience has taught that the devil can be in the details. Reopening NAFTA risks creating uncertainty that can adversely affect bilateral trade and business investment. This should be as much a concern for US border states, businesses and workers as it is for their Canadian counterparts, because of the high degree of economic integration between the US and Canada. Canada and the US both signed the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in December 2015, thereby committing to achieve nationally determined reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Canada has since then taken steps to establish a national price on carbon in consultation with the provinces (either through a carbon tax or a cap and trade regime). Meanwhile, President Trump is seeking to reverse Obama Administration climate change policies and has yet to propose alternative measures such as a carbon tax. This policy difference on the application of environmental taxes, combined with improved prospects for tax reform in the US that will likely include a significant reduction in corporate tax rates and could include a possible border adjustment tax (BAT) now under consideration by Congress, poses a double threat for Canadian firms by creating a competitive tax advantage for US firms. Tax Policy and Controversy News from the North 1

3 Whereas both Canada and the US have historically supported (and benefited from) immigration, the Trump administration has announced restrictions on immigration and the admission of refugees and has approved the construction of a wall along the border with Mexico and the hiring of thousands more border patrol agents and immigration enforcement officers. No one anticipates that a wall will be built along the northern border with Canada, but the longest undefended border in the world could be thickened by other means, and there is concern over the impact this could have on trade and commercial relations. These external policy concerns were clearly reflected in the Liberals second budget, not so much by what was in it, but what wasn t. While the projected annual budgetary deficit continues to grow (and the government announced no timetable or plan to eliminate it), the budget contained only minimal spending increases, and no significant tax increases or new tax measures, despite election promises to eliminate tax expenditures that benefit the wealthy and wide speculation that it would increase the inclusion rate for taxation of capital gains. Any such plans have been deferred and replaced by a wait and see stance for the time being, pending greater clarity around the outcome of the US tax reform debate and the timetable and agenda for NAFTA negotiations. Further tax changes may be contained in this year s fall economic statement or next year s budget. We are indeed living in interesting times. Fred O Riordan fred.r.oriordan@ca.ey.com Tax Policy and Controversy News from the North 2

4 The Canada Revenue Agency has been busy. Have you been paying attention? The CRA s cracking down campaign The 2016 federal budget dedicated an additional CDN$444 million to the CRA over five years to address offshore tax evasion and transfer pricing. The CRA s response to this has been to initiate its cracking down campaign. The elements of this program include: Reviewing all electronic funds transfers over CDN$10,000 as they cross borders to and from Canada Collaborating and sharing information with international partners Identifying promoters of aggressive tax schemes Identifying international non-compliance and abuses through the exchange of information via the treaty network Establishing the Offshore Compliance Advisory Committee (OCAC) to establish new ways to address offshore tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance Using the OECD s BEPS Action Plans to focus on multinational companies The CRA recently acknowledged that it has initiated in excess of 750 audits linked to offshore tax havens. Twenty of these case are under criminal investigation. The CRA also engaged in an extensive hiring process this past fall, with a large group of new senior-level auditors hired across the country. These auditors will be dedicated strictly to international tax and transfer pricing, as well as aggressive tax avoidance. The federal government has already budgeted for additional income from these new audit investments on the basis of CDN$5 for every CDN$1 invested. These tax dollars will be assessed against many corporations doing business in Canada. As if this wasn t enough, the 2017 federal budget announced a further CDN$523.9 million in funding for the CRA over five years to address the same tax evasion and avoidance issues, with the same expectation of a five-to-one return on the investment in terms of additional tax revenue assessed. Are you prepared for this new wave of auditors? Tax Policy and Controversy News from the North 3

5 The Canada Revenue Agency has been busy. Have you been paying attention? (cont d) Transfer pricing penalties increasing at a significant rate The CRA imposes transfer pricing penalties on companies that fail to document their intercompany transactions in a reasonable manner where a transfer pricing adjustment exceeds the lesser of CDN$5 million and 10% of gross revenue. The transfer pricing penalty is a cash penalty of 10% of the transfer pricing adjustment where the transaction has not reasonably been documented. Data published by the CRA confirm that the assessment of transfer pricing penalties continues to increase in both quantum and quantity. Transfer pricing penalties assessed have increased from CDN$58.6 million in 2012 to CDN$479 million in An additional CDN$225 million was assessed in the first six months of The quantum of files considered for transfer pricing penalties has also increased at an alarming rate. Fifty-four cases were reviewed in That increased to 69 cases in More alarming is that the CRA reviewed 62 cases in the first six months of The implications of this data seem to be that the CRA has been issuing more reassessments related to transfer pricing, and the amount of those transfer pricing adjustments has been increasing. This should not come as a surprise to anyone who has had any interactions with the CRA of late. CRA officials have made numerous public statements of their intent to increase transfer pricing audits. Auditors have become more aggressive in their positions and reluctant to amend their positions once they have proposed adjustments in writing. Thus, the importance of managing the audit appropriately becomes a key element to the successful resolution any tax dispute. Potential future restrictions to the Voluntary Disclosure Program The CRA established the OCAC in April 2016 with a mandate to advise the CRA in respect of strategies to address offshore compliance. The CRA s Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP) allows taxpayers to come forward to correct their tax reporting and liability responsibilities to the CRA to enable them to avoid penalties and potentially obtain interest relief on assessments. The VDP program was one of the first programs reviewed by the OCAC. The OCAC made several recommendations to the CRA that could impact or even restrict the availability of the VDP in the future. Specifically, the OCAC recommended that the VDP should not be available for multinational companies to seek relief from transfer pricing penalties in respect of transfer pricing issues. While the tax community has debated the merits of this recommendation, the CRA has yet to issue a statement of its intent other than to state that it will review the recommendations and announce changes in late That wording suggests that there will be changes to the VDP. It is recommended that multinationals do a thorough review of their transfer pricing transactions and transfer pricing policies to determine if there are any transfer pricing matters that would need to be addressed through the VDP before any restrictions are put in place later this year. Tax Policy and Controversy News from the North 4

6 The Canada Revenue Agency has been busy. Have you been paying attention? (cont d) Electronic funds transfer audits Financial institutions in Canada are now required by law to report all electronic funds transfer (EFTs) in excess of $10,000 to the CRA. This requirement is for both transfers out of Canada and transfers into Canada. The CRA has confirmed that it is using this data to initiate audits of these transactions. The audits are very detailed and the information requests are extensive. The CRA has been requesting support for EFTs, including the purpose of the transaction, the source of the funds, the banking information and the relationship to the other party. Internet banking is now quite common, especially when settling intercompany accounts. The administrative burden of complying with requests related to EFT audits is substantial. More important, information provided to the CRA can lead to additional audit activity for transfer pricing or withholding issues. Once again, management of the audit will be key in reaching a satisfactory resolution. Nonresident certified employer audits Nonresident employees who travel into Canada for work are subjected to payroll withholdings similar to a Canadian-resident employee working in Canada. However, often the nonresident s ultimate tax bill is nil in Canada as a result of the Canada-US Tax Treaty. The liability and responsibility, however, does not disappear regardless of the lack of any ultimate tax liability. In early 2016, the CRA finally made some concessions on this point by introducing the concept of a Non-Resident Certified Employer (NRCE). By applying for and receiving certification from the CRA, nonresident employers would be exempt from payroll withholdings on those nonresident employees working in Canada who earned less than $10,000 (or less depending on the applicable tax treaty), worked in Canada less than 45 days in a calendar year, or less than 90 days in any 12-month period. There were several conditions to the CRA granting certification, including that the nonresident employer maintain and track the number of days that the nonresident employees are in Canada, and the income attributable to these days. In the fall of 2016, the CRA initiated audits of approximately 50% of all the nonresident certified employers to confirm that they were adhering to the conditions of the agreement. The CRA also noted that they intended to audit the balance of these employers upon completion of the first set of audits. Nonresident certified employers should ensure that they have an efficient system in place for tracking days that nonresident employees are in Canada and the income attributable to those days or risk losing their certification. EY has tools available that can assist in this regard should they be needed. Kevin O Reilley kevin.oreilley@ca.ey.com Tax Policy and Controversy News from the North 5

7 Canadian Government grants and incentives To remain competitive globally, it is imperative for companies to continue to innovate and grow. Canada promotes innovation and growth through a multitude of government grants and incentives for Canadian businesses. The federal government and all provincial governments offer support in the form of non-repayable grants, favourable loans and tax credits. Ontario and Quebec have the largest number of programs available. But while the other provinces have fewer program offerings, new programs are announced on a monthly basis in an effort to support their regional priorities and compete with the other provinces. Regardless of geographic region in the country, government incentive programs can be broadly grouped into five categories relating to the initiatives they support: 1. Business and market expansion 2. Innovation development 3. People development 4. Environmental sustainability 5. Film, video and digital technology development Programs in the business and market expansion category generally support projects that include facility expansions, new product line expansions and expansion to new markets. For Ontario businesses, projects that involve expanding innovation capacity, improving productivity, performance and competitiveness and those that are proposed be in excess of CDN$10m in expenditures could be eligible for up to a 20% non-repayable grant contribution. Similar projects that are expected to be less than $10m could be eligible for a 15% non-repayable grant to a maximum of $1.5m if project costs exceed $500,000. Program offerings in the innovation development category generally support projects that require significant R&D investment for new product and technology development, acquisition of new equipment and technology to improve productivity as well as industry/university collaboration initiatives. Canada s longstanding flagship Scientific Research & Experimental Development (SR&ED) program provides up to a 35% federal credit for SR&ED eligible labour, materials and subcontractor expenditures. In addition to SR&ED, federal programs such as the National Research Council s (NRC s) Industry Research Assistance Program (IRAP) provide R&D project-based non-repayable funding up to $500,000 per project. Tax Policy and Controversy News from the North 6

8 Canadian Government grants and incentives (cont d) In many provinces, both federal and provincial assistance is available to help Canadian companies hire and retain staff, improve their effectiveness and train their employees in areas such as advanced technologies or operational processes. Specific programs support initiatives towards hiring of recent university/college graduates, training programs for upskilling staff, training on new technology or equipment installations, and supporting the temporary hiring of co-op students and interns. Companies looking to hire recent university graduates from the science, technology, engineering and math disciplines can access funding to subsidize 50% of the first year s salary for a new hire. Support for climate change initiatives and technology development projects has also increased in recent years. Grants are available for projects aimed at greenhouse gas reductions, energy conservation, and water conservation and usage reduction. These programs can improve the ROI for a company s sustainability strategies, including renewable energy investments, energy efficiency improvements, recycling initiatives, advanced manufacturing and green building construction. Over the past five years, there has been a focused effort by the federal and provincial governments to deliver grants and incentives to Canadian businesses through direct funding mechanisms (i.e., non-repayable cash contributions and favourable loan programs) over indirect funding mechanisms such as tax credits. While these programs have defined eligibility criteria, the majority are discretionary and limited to budget availability. The discretionary nature of the majority of direct funding programs introduces a high level of uncertainty to companies that would otherwise be eligible. In addition, businesses are required to submit their application and receive funding approval before commencing the project. This requires companies to plan ahead and develop a funding strategy to be successful. Regardless of whether programs are statutory or discretionary, with proper planning and advice, there is significant opportunity for Canadian businesses to receive government funding for their upcoming projects. Chris Chipman Canadian Incentives Leader chris.chipman@ca.ey.com Tax Policy and Controversy News from the North 7

9 Canadian tax authority succeeds in obtaining lawyer s tax memo denying the existence of common interest privilege outside litigation contexts A recent lengthy Federal Court of Canada (FCC) decision, Minister of National Revenue v Iggillis Holdings Inc. and Ian Gillis, 2016 FC 1352, ordered the production of a lawyer s tax memo that Iggillis Holdings Inc. and Ian Gillis (the taxpayers) claimed was protected by common interest privilege (CIP). The taxpayers were involved in the purchase and sale of a business to a purchaser corporation, Abacus Capital Corporations Mergers and Acquisitions. The taxpayers and Abacus were represented by different legal counsel. As is often the case in purchase and sale situations, the tax lawyers for the vendor and purchaser discussed the tax consequences of the proposed purchase. Abacus s legal counsel prepared the memo summarizing the tax consequences of the transactions, and shared drafts of the memo with the taxpayers legal counsel, who provided comments. Once the memo was finalized, Abacus s legal counsel provided a copy of the memo to the taxpayers legal counsel. When the CRA demanded a copy of the memo, the taxpayers refused to provide it on the basis that it was protected by CIP. The CRA sought a court order to compel disclosure of the opinion. The FCC discussed two potential types of CIP: litigation CIP and advisory (or transactional) CIP. Litigation CIP pertains to communications between lawyers whose clients share a common interest as they are similarly positioned in a litigation or anticipated litigation (e.g., as co-accused in a criminal proceeding or co-defendants or co-plaintiffs in a civil proceeding). Litigation CIP did not apply in this case, but the FCC recognized that litigation CIP is an extension of litigation privilege. Advisory CIP pertains to communications between lawyers whose clients share a common interest that is not related to a litigation or anticipated litigation, often in a commercial transaction context. The taxpayers in this case sought protection from disclosure under advisory CIP. The FCC found in favour of the CRA and ordered the taxpayers to provide the CRA with a copy of the memo. In coming to its decision, the FCC examined both Canadian and US case law and a US academic article. The FCC found that advisory CIP was not a valid form of solicitor-client privilege, did not share any functional compatibility with litigation CIP or litigation privilege, and could not be substantiated as a separate form of case-by-case privilege. Tax Policy and Controversy News from the North 8

10 Canadian tax authority succeeds in obtaining lawyer s tax memo denying the existence of common interest privilege outside litigation context (cont d) In respect of a previous FCC decision that found advisory CIP to be a valid form of solicitor-client privilege, the FCC in this case found that the previous decision was actually about joint client privilege (where two clients retain the same lawyer for a particular matter), which is distinct from advisory CIP and is a valid form of solicitor-client privilege. The FCC, in conducting a cost/benefit analysis, noted that advisory CIP affords no benefit to the administration of justice in either enhancing compliance or maintaining the solicitor-client relationship and undermines the administration of justice in that it only enables transactions that likely anticipate litigation (such as aggressive tax planning arrangements), expands the quantity of relevant evidence that is denied to the courts and provides an increased potential for abuse. The taxpayers have appealed the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. In the meantime, the CRA may seek out tax memoranda shared by legal counsel representing different parties in commercial transactions. In particularly controversial matters, taxpayers should seek to have such matters stayed until the appeal of this FCC decision is decided. Furthermore, when the legal counsel of different taxpayers disclose information to each other, they should be mindful that such disclosure could cause that information/communication to no longer be protected by solicitor-client privilege. Roxanne Wong roxanne.wong@ca.ey.com Tax Policy and Controversy News from the North 9

11 Cross-border GST and customs issues The frequent Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) audits and denials of input tax credits (ITCs) in cross-border transactions serve as a reminder that there are many goods and services tax (GST) and customs traps involved when importing and exporting goods. Cross-border GST and customs issues become particularly relevant when a company is re-engineering its supply chain. The following outstanding items should be given consideration. Recovering GST paid on importation and identifying the importer of record (IOR). The recovery of the tax on importation requires careful planning. In Canada, various parties in a trade chain can act as the IOR if they obtain an importer account number from the CRA. Both the IOR and the actual importer are liable for taxes, but only the actual (or de facto) importer can obtain an ITC for the GST paid on the importation. If an ITC is not available to the taxpayer, certain elections, a flow-through method of recovery or drop shipment rules may be used to avoid adverse tax consequences. The CRA may not consider these relieving provisions upon reviewing such transactions in the context of an audit. GST should not be applicable in case of exports, but an exporter should pay close attention to whether or not its export meets the necessary requirements to be zero rated. For example, the export of tangible personal property (i.e., a good) is zero rated (i.e., taxed at 0%). This is subject to a number of conditions: The good is not an excisable good The recipient is not a consumer The recipient exports the property as soon as is reasonable The property is not acquired for consumption, use or supply by the recipient in Canada prior to export The property is not further processed, transformed or altered in Canada by the recipient except to the extent necessary for the transportation of the property The supplier maintains satisfactory evidence of the exportation. If the export is not zero rated, the issue might arise where the purchaser (presumably nonresident and not registrant) won t be able to claim the ITC. Nonresident companies face particular challenges when planning to import goods into Canada in their own name. Nonresident companies face particular challenges when planning to import goods into Canada and selling in Canada in their own name. Therefore, they must remain vigilant to situations that might trigger GST consequences. Tax Policy and Controversy News from the North 10

12 Typically, a company will carefully consider whether or not its planned commercial activities (selling to Canadian customers, importing and delivering goods, maintaining inventory) will create a permanent establishment (PE) in Canada for income tax purposes. However, that same company may not invest as much time and energy in determining what indirect tax consequences might be triggered by the same commercial activities. The sales tax registration threshold is lower than having a PE and usually turns on the ephemeral concept of carrying on business. The decision of whether or not to register for GST/HST or QST should be made with a clear understanding of its impact. Establishing where the ownership of the imported goods is transferred and when the supply is made is critical for resident and nonresident importers alike. Such details are relevant when determining who should be charging GST or other taxes on which transactions and also who can claim an ITC. A common pitfall is that companies rely on Incoterms1 without considering their implications, which can result in a higher-than-necessary dutiable customs value or unanticipated risks and expenses borne by the purchaser/importer. 1 Incoterms rules are an internationally recognized standard and are used worldwide in international and domestic contracts for the sale of goods. The Incoterms rules have been incorporated in contracts for the sale of goods worldwide and provide rules and guidance to importers, exporters, lawyers, transporters, insurers and students of international trade. The rules have been developed and maintained by experts and practitioners brought together by International Chamber of Commerce. They have become the standard in international business rules setting. Launched in mid-september 2010, Incoterms 2010 came into effect on 1 January The trade terms help traders avoid costly misunderstandings by clarifying the tasks, costs and risks involved in the delivery of goods from sellers to buyers. Drop shipment rules. These rules arise where a nonresident vendor does not keep goods in inventory, but instead transfers customer orders and shipment details to either a manufacturer or a wholesaler that is a GST/HST registrant, who then ships the goods directly to the customer in Canada. Rules exist to relieve the GST burden, but the interpretation of the rules can be less than obvious and many companies will unknowingly misapply the rules, creating a risk that goes unnoticed until a GST audit is conducted on one of the companies involved in the supply chain. Establishing where the ownership of the imported goods is transferred and when the supply is made is critical for resident and nonresident importers alike. Such details are relevant when determining who should be charging GST or other taxes on which transactions and also who can claim an ITC regarding the GST paid upon import. A common pitfall is that companies rely on Incoterms without considering their implications, which can result in higher-than-necessary duties or unanticipated risks and expenses borne by the purchaser/importer. Tax Policy and Controversy News from the North 11

13 Cross-border GST and customs issues (cont d) The CBSA will issue monetary penalties for noncompliance with customs obligations. All imported goods must be reported to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), the proper customs value must be determined and any applicable duties and taxes (e.g., customs duties and import GST) must be calculated and paid. Determining the customs value of imported goods or their value for duty (VFD) requires the application of a prescribed valuation method. There are additional complications to arrive at the VFD when the seller and the buyer are related. The CBSA will accept a transfer price (intercompany price) as the basis for customs valuation in certain circumstances if based on an OECD-approved method, and also if the price paid or payable is arm s length and all intercompany charges that might constitute statutory additions to the VFD have been included. Although Canada is known as a favourable jurisdiction when it comes to transfer prices for purposes of determining the VFD on related-party transactions, income tax rules that govern transfer pricing and the customs valuation rules are not the same. The importer, not the customs broker, is responsible for the importation and all customs compliance obligations surrounding the import, so it s important to ensure the broker receives the correct information and to verify that the declaration was done correctly. Importing and exporting goods into and out of Canada is complex and requires a very good understanding of laws and regulations. There are many potential traps and there can be costly consequences for the misinformed and unprepared. For further details, please refer to the article published in the June 2013, Issue 4 of Commodity Tax News regarding certain cross-border GST and customs issues you should consider when reengineering a supply chain, written by Dalton Albrecht, Partner, Indirect Tax, and Sylvain Golsse, Senior Manager, Indirect Tax, EY. Catalina Alexandrescu catalina.alexandrescu@ca.ey.com Nicolas Désy nicolas.desy@ca.ey.com Tax Policy and Controversy News from the North 12

14 About EY Law Canadian contacts Business immigration firm Egan LLP and tax law firm Couzin Taylor LLP both award-winning boutique law firms affiliated with EY in Canada have merged to form EY Law LLP. EY Law LLP s broad range of legal services includes: Tax law services Assistance with tax planning, controversy and counsel services. Business immigration services Help with immigration matters, including work permit processing, temporary resident visa processing, permanent residence applications and business visitor entries in Canada and the United States. Business law services Support with corporate reorganizations, acquisitions, mergers, and corporate secretarial services. EY Law LLP has offices in Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver. For more information, visit Paul Mulvihill Partner, Transfer Pricing, EY paul.f.mulvihill@ca.ey.com Kevin O Reilley National Advisor, Tax Controversy, EY kevin.oreilley@ca.ey.com Fred O Riordan National Advisor, Tax, and Canadian Leader, Economics and Analytical Services, EY fred.r.oriordan@ca.ey.com Did you know? Daniel Sandler Managing Partner, EY Law* daniel.sandler@ca.ey.com Gary Zed, Partner Tax Policy and Controversy Leader, EY gary.zed@ca.ey.com * A national firm of Canadian tax lawyers, allied with EY in Canada, that provides tax litigation and tax counsel assistance to clients, tax planners and tax transaction advisors. Our full-service Tax Controversy practice includes several former senior Government of Canada tax officials. We ve argued more than 200 cases at the Tax Court of Canada and more than 50 cases at the Federal Court of Appeals, and have appeared seven times as lead counsel in front of the Supreme Court of Canada. Tax Policy and Controversy News from the North 13

15 EY Assurance Tax Transactions Advisory About EY EY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. The insights and quality services we deliver help build trust and confidence in the capital markets and in economies the world over. We develop outstanding leaders who team to deliver on our promises to all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we play a critical role in building a better working world for our people, for our clients and for our communities. EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organization, please visit ey.com. For more information about our organization, please visit ey.com/ca Ernst & Young LLP. All Rights Reserved. A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited ED None This publication contains information in summary form, current as of the date of publication, and is intended for general guidance only. It should not be regarded as comprehensive or a substitute for professional advice. Before taking any particular course of action, contact Ernst & Young or another professional advisor to discuss these matters in the context of your particular circumstances. We accept no responsibility for any loss or damage occasioned by your reliance on information contained in this publication. ey.com/ca