Policy Forum: Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How Discerning an Avoidance Transaction

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Policy Forum: Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How Discerning an Avoidance Transaction"

Transcription

1 canadian tax journal / revue fiscale canadienne (2009) vol. 57, n o 2, Policy Forum: Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How Discerning an Avoidance Transaction Angelo Nikolakakis* A b s t r a c t This article raises two questions: whether a transaction that results in more than one tax benefit is necessarily an avoidance transaction with reference to all the resulting tax benefits if the transaction is undertaken or arranged primarily for the purpose of obtaining any one (or more) of the benefits; and whether having as a primary purpose for a particular transaction the obtaining of a particular tax benefit that does not result in abusive tax avoidance can be a bona fide purpose other than obtaining the tax benefit with reference to a different, collateral tax benefit resulting from the same transaction. Keywords: GAAR n avoidance n transactions n multiple n tax benefits n bona fide purposes C o n t e n t s Introduction 294 The Question 295 The Statutory Language 296 Lipson Revisited 302 Conclusion 305 Intro duc tion Somewhat surprisingly, the meaning of avoidance transaction remains a bit of a mystery, 1 although it is over 20 years since the addition of the general anti-avoidance * Of Couzin Taylor LLP (allied with Ernst & Young LLP), Montreal ( 1 There is a cartoon that my children like to watch, called Busytown Mysteries, all about solving mysteries. Each episode includes a song based on the phrase who, what, where, when, why, and how. More seriously, in the context of avoidance transactions, there is also the reference to the how and the why in MIL (Investments) SA v. The Queen, 2006 DTC 3307, at paragraphs 50 and 53 (TCC). I might just as well have alluded to the more poetic To be, or not to be [an avoidance transaction ]: that is the question, from William Shakespeare s Hamlet (act 3, scene 1). 294

2 discerning an avoidance transaction n 295 rule to the Income Tax Act. 2 While certain questions have been resolved, 3 others persist. One such question is this: Where a particular transaction results in more than one tax benefit, is the determination as to whether or not the particular transaction is or is not an avoidance transaction to be made separately with reference to each resulting tax benefit, or once and for all with reference to any resulting tax benefit? The purpose of this article is to explore this question, and certain of its permutations, and to suggest that there does not, to date, appear to be any compelling authority on point. The Que s t ion It is appropriate to begin by developing a better statement of the question, and there are different ways to articulate it. In addition to the formulation in the preceding paragraph, one could state the question as whether or not the status of being an avoidance transaction is something that is absolute rather than relative to a particular tax benefit, or a particular series of transactions. In other words: Is a transaction an avoidance transaction (or not) for all purposes and for all times once that status attaches for any reason, or is it an avoidance transaction only in respect of a particular tax benefit or a particular series, such that it can be an avoidance transaction with respect to the particular tax benefit or series and not be an avoidance transaction with respect to a different tax benefit or series? To illustrate the point of the question, one might consider the following type of situation. Assume that a particular transaction results in two tax benefits, benefit a and benefit b. Assume, further, that the primary purpose (say, as to 90 percent of the driving force ) 4 for undertaking the transaction was to obtain benefit a. Finally, assume that benefit a would be regarded as a perfectly legitimate tax benefit under a subsection 245(4) misuse or abuse analysis, but benefit b would be considered abusive. In that context, if the transaction is regarded as an avoidance transaction with reference to each of the tax benefits, benefit a should survive, but benefit b will also have to be tested under subsection 245(4) and may not survive. In contrast, if the transaction is not an avoidance transaction with reference to benefit b (despite the fact that it may be an avoidance transaction with reference to 2 RSC 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), as amended (herein referred to as the Act ). Unless otherwise stated, statutory references in this article are to the Act. Section 245 was added in For example, we know from The Queen v. Canadian Pacific Limited, 2002 DTC 6742 (FCA), that an aspect of a transaction (including the choice between two specific alternative forms of transaction) is not a separate transaction. This is also consistent with the reasoning in MIL, supra note 1, in relation to the references to the how and the why. We also know from the concurrent decisions in The Queen v. Canada Trustco Mortgage Co., 2005 DTC 5523 (SCC), and Mathew v. The Queen (sub nom. Kaulius et al. v. The Queen), 2005 DTC 5538 (SCC), that each transaction in a series must be tested separately as to whether or not it is an avoidance transaction, and from The Queen v. MacKay et al., 2008 DTC 6238 (FCA), that having an overall non-tax purpose for the series of transactions as a whole does not necessarily imbue each of the transactions within the series with the same purpose. 4 See Canada Trustco, supra note 3, at paragraph 28.

3 296 n canadian tax journal / revue fiscale canadienne (2009) vol. 57, n o 2 benefit a), then benefit b should not have to be tested under subsection 245(4) and should also survive (even if it would not have survived if it did have to be so tested). There are also other conceivable scenarios in which this type of question can arise. The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Lipson v. Canada 5 clearly acknowledges the possibility of multiple benefits, and holds that the subsection 245(4) analysis must be conducted separately with regard to each relevant tax benefit (see paragraph 22), but this assumes that each such tax benefit results from an avoidance transaction (or a series of transactions that includes such a transaction), which was conceded in that matter. Thus, the decision does not directly address the question at hand. 6 The Stat uto ry L a nguage The relevant statutory language has often been considered, or at least acknowledged, but seldom parsed. Subsection 245(2) provides as follows: (2) Where a transaction is an avoidance transaction, the tax consequences to a person shall be determined as is reasonable in the circumstances in order to deny a tax benefit that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, from that transaction or from a series of transactions that includes that transaction. Thus, subsection 245(2) can apply to do either of two things: first, to deny a tax benefit that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, from that transaction ; or second, to deny a tax benefit that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly,... from a series of transactions that includes that transaction. This brings us to the collateral but possibly critical question of how to determine what a tax benefit results from: Does it result from a particular transaction or, rather, from a series of transactions? Moreover, how does this question affect the avoidance transaction determination with regard to the more general question explored in this article? If there are two distinct series of transactions, and the transaction that is in question (as to whether it is an avoidance transaction ) is part of the first series but is not part of the second series (bearing in mind the wide scope that the second series can have if it can include an earlier transaction that the participants to the second series knew of or took into account ), 7 then it seems that if the tax benefit in question results from the second series but not as such from the transaction or the first series, then subsection 245(2) cannot apply, because it is not the case that we have either a tax benefit that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, from that transaction or a tax benefit that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly,... from a series of transactions that includes that transaction. The tax benefit (we have assumed) results from the second series and the transaction in question is not part of the second series, so subsection 245(2) cannot SCC 1. 6 The Lipson decision is discussed below in greater detail. 7 See Canada Trustco, supra note 3, at paragraphs

4 discerning an avoidance transaction n 297 apply on that count even if the transaction in question is an avoidance transaction (as an absolute status because it was an avoidance transaction as part of the first series). Arguably, it may be reasonable to consider that a tax benefit results from a transaction only to the extent that the transaction changes the consequences that would arise in the absence of the transaction. But there will also be cases in which the tax benefit does not result at all unless each of two or more transactions is undertaken. In such cases, perhaps it would be reasonable to consider that the tax benefit results from a series of transactions, rather than from a particular transaction. The correct approach to take in making determinations with respect to this type of question also remains a bit of a mystery, but is beyond the scope of this article. For present purposes, it will be assumed that it can be and is determined that more than one tax benefit results from a single transaction. On that type of assumption (more specifically, that two distinct tax benefits result from the tested transaction namely, benefit a and benefit b, as described above), the question then arises: Is the transaction an avoidance transaction with respect to either or both of the tax benefits, and how exactly does one make this determination? Subsection 245(3) provides as follows: (3) An avoidance transaction means any transaction (a) that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit; or (b) that is part of a series of transactions, which series, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit. Thus, according to subsection 245(3), an avoidance transaction is defined as (that is, means ) any transaction that fits the description set out in paragraph (a) or (b). However, the statutory language does not explicitly address the possibility that more than one tax benefit may result from one transaction. Interestingly, the opening language does not say An avoidance transaction means, with respect to a particular tax benefit, any transaction, or anything along the lines of For the purpose of applying subsection (2) in respect of a particular tax benefit, an avoidance transaction means any transaction. Moreover, even if it did say exactly that, it would not seem to follow that the status of a transaction as an avoidance transaction (or not) is a relative matter (relative to the tax benefit in question) because the description in paragraph (a), for example, refers first to a tax benefit, not the tax benefit. That is, if the opening language actually said (or implicitly says), For the purpose of applying subsection (2) in respect of a particular tax benefit, an avoidance transaction means any transaction, the balance of the provision in paragraph (a) would still say that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit [not the tax benefit ], unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit ; and even in that context, it seems doubtful that it would be

5 298 n canadian tax journal / revue fiscale canadienne (2009) vol. 57, n o 2 appropriate to interpret the reference to the tax benefit as a reference to a particular tax benefit. Accordingly, while it may be argued that the opening words should be interpreted as implicitly saying For the purpose of applying subsection (2) in respect of a particular tax benefit which may be fair insofar as it is difficult to imagine what other purpose this definition could have that argument is not sufficient in itself to preclude the conclusion that the status of being an avoidance transaction is absolute in the sense that it applies for all purposes once it attaches. On the other hand, paragraph 245(3)(a) does not say that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain a tax benefit. The argument that emerges from this observation is based on the hypothesis that if the government had intended to necessarily make the status of being an avoidance transaction absolute, it would have referred to a tax benefit in the second reference instead of the tax benefit. The argument is more or less as follows. If the government had referred to a tax benefit in the second reference, it would have been clear that this benefit could be a benefit other than the benefit in the first reference. On that basis, the rule would be saying that obtaining a tax benefit any tax benefit, even a different one cannot be a qualifying bona fide purpose, since the end of the phrase would be undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain a tax benefit. In essence, that is the whole question here: Can a transaction be considered not to be an avoidance transaction with reference to a particular tax benefit if it is undertaken or arranged primarily to obtain another tax benefit which is legitimate? If a transaction that is undertaken or arranged primarily for the purpose of getting a particular tax benefit cannot, with respect to any other tax benefit, be regarded as having been undertaken or arranged primarily for a qualifying bona fide purpose (since the assumption is that obtaining the particular tax benefit is not a qualifying bona fide purpose), then it seems to follow that a transaction cannot be other than an avoidance transaction with reference to a particular tax benefit if it is undertaken or arranged primarily to obtain a different tax benefit. Indeed, it is exactly the converse to this very proposition that a relativistic approach to the status of being an avoidance transaction would produce. That is, the whole point of a relativistic approach is to be able to say that the transaction was undertaken or arranged primarily for the purpose of obtaining benefit a, and that obtaining benefit a is a bona fide purpose other than obtaining the tax benefit, being benefit b. The argument has its attractiveness, but does suffer from the weakness of being based to some extent on speculation what the government would have done. This type of speculation can also go in the opposite direction. It should be noted that the language in subsection 245(2) also refers to a tax benefit rather than the tax benefit (although the explanatory notes do refer to the tax benefit in this context). 8 8 Canada, Department of Finance, Explanatory Notes to Legislation Relating to Income Tax (Ottawa: Department of Finance, June 1988), clause 186.

6 discerning an avoidance transaction n 299 Thus, one could make an argument that had the government contemplated a relativistic approach, the more appropriate reference would have been to the tax benefit, since the transaction would necessarily be an avoidance transaction (or not) with reference to the particular tax benefit first referred to in subsection 245(3). The argument would then proceed that, since subsection 245(2) refers to a tax benefit, it contemplates that an avoidance transaction can result in multiple tax benefits, and that it can be an avoidance transaction with reference to multiple tax benefits, and further more importantly that the avoidance transaction determination can be made only once and for all and need not be made separately with reference to each particular tax benefit. What is interesting in this line of reasoning is that it does seem somewhat odd to posit that the government intended a relativistic approach to the avoidance transaction determination but then used a reference to a tax benefit in subsection 245(2), given that at least one particular benefit would have had to have been the driving force behind the transaction to make it an avoidance transaction in the first place. In other words, subsection 245(2) posits a condition Where a transaction is an avoidance transaction and then refers to a tax benefit that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, from that transaction or from a series of transactions that includes that transaction. In order for the transaction to be an avoidance transaction, it must result in a tax benefit and not have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit. Thus, in the context of a relativistic approach to the definition of avoidance transaction, it would seem natural to refer to the tax benefit in subsection 245(2), because there must be a definite tax benefit in order for the transaction to be an avoidance transaction in the first place. The argument would conclude that, therefore, once a transaction is an avoidance transaction because it was undertaken or arranged primarily to obtain any tax benefit, any and all other tax benefits resulting from the transaction (each, together with the one that triggered that status, being a tax benefit referred to in subsection 245(2)) can be reversed under subsection 245(2), subject only to the application of subsection 245(4). It is always difficult to make arguments based on what the government might have done. What the government did do was refer to a tax benefit in the first reference and the tax benefit in the second reference. The upshot is that this language does not preclude the argument that a relativistic approach is appropriate, and that obtaining benefit a can be a bona fide purpose other than obtaining the tax benefit with reference to benefit b. It is also generally accepted, if not perfectly clear, that reasonably reducing provincial or foreign taxes can be a bona fide purpose in this context; therefore, if reasonably reducing some other tax payable under the Act (benefit a) does not get the transaction out of being an avoidance transaction with reference to benefit b, it is not because obtaining benefit a necessarily cannot be a bona fide purpose, but because an absolutist approach is the appropriate one. Moreover, since there is no textual limitation in the definition of avoidance transaction to compel a relativistic approach, that definition remains open to being interpreted as providing for an absolutist approach. One might as well ask whether, for example, a particular share that is a taxable preferred share as defined in subsection 248(1)

7 300 n canadian tax journal / revue fiscale canadienne (2009) vol. 57, n o 2 is then a taxable preferred share for all purposes, unless it is defined as or deemed to be a taxable preferred share only for certain purposes. Before looking at collateral elements of legislative intent, one other point to note is that, however one comes out on this absolute/relative status debate, it is clear that a transaction will necessarily be an avoidance transaction with reference to every benefit that it produces, except in circumstances where the unless condition is satisfied. ( An avoidance transaction means any transaction... that... would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless.... ) Thus, if a transaction results in a tax benefit, whether that is any benefit or the particular benefit, it is an avoidance transaction unless the specified exception applies. It is in the context of the unless part of this definition that our question manifests itself. Can one say the unless part can be satisfied with reference to a different tax benefit (other than the particular tax benefit), and that pursuing that other benefit is a bona fide purpose? Under an absolutist approach, one could pick any single tax benefit against which to test the transaction and ask whether the transaction was undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit. The answer would be no, unless the transaction was undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit. Thus, a transaction will be an avoidance transaction for all purposes (that is, for purposes of all tax benefits) if at least 50 percent of its driving force is any single tax benefit (such that it cannot be said that the transaction was undertaken or arranged primarily for any other purpose). Thereafter, the only questions would be what other tax benefits resulted from the transaction and whether subsection 245(4) applies, not whether the transaction is an avoidance transaction with reference to those other tax benefits. Under a relativistic approach, one would text the transaction against each tax benefit, in each case asking whether the transaction was undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit. The answer would be yes, except with reference to any particular tax benefit that represents at least 50 percent of the driving force, assuming that the other purposes are either bona fide non-tax purposes or bona fide tax purposes other than obtaining the particular tested tax benefit. This, too, gives rise to an interesting observation. Applying a relativistic approach, it would be possible to conclude that a transaction is an avoidance transaction with reference to one of the tax benefits resulting from the transaction ( the main benefit ) but not any other tax benefits resulting from the transaction ( collateral benefits ) if the transaction was undertaken or arranged primarily for the purpose of obtaining the main benefit and that purpose is a bona fide purpose other than obtaining the tax benefit with reference to the other benefits, even if all the benefits are contemplated. It seems arguable that if the main benefit is regarded as abusive, the purpose of the transaction should not be regarded as a bona fide purpose with reference to the collateral benefits, but if the main benefit is regarded as a bona fide benefit, then it could be. Thus, in that context, the transaction would be an avoidance transaction with reference to the main benefit, so that the analysis would proceed to subsection 245(4), such that the main benefit would be put through scrutiny as to its abusiveness. However, if the main benefit passes the abuse test, then the other tax benefits do not

8 discerning an avoidance transaction n 301 receive individual scrutiny as to their abusiveness they simply pass through because the transaction is not an avoidance transaction with reference to those benefits. Accordingly, with reference to the collateral benefits, this approach would effectively equate a bona fide tax purpose getting the main benefit (being a bona fide purpose other than to obtain the tax benefit ) to a bona fide non-tax purpose. That a bona fide tax purpose could be equated to a bona fide non-tax purpose in the context of a different tax benefit does not seem to be fundamentally inappropriate, or a result that the government could not conceivably have intended. However, is it what the government intended? A review of an earlier draft of the general anti-avoidance rule reveals that the unless part of the definition of an avoidance transaction referred only to bona fide business purposes. 9 This could have been interpreted to preclude the possibility of concluding that a tax purpose, however legitimate, could be a qualifying bona fide purpose with reference to any tax benefit. But a different interpretation would also have been conceivable. That reference was ultimately changed, but seemingly only in order to clarify that bona fide purposes could include non-business purposes, such as investment, succession, and other such purposes (and this is reflected in the explanatory notes), so the change does not assist very much in resolving the present question. Moreover, even the reference to bona fide business purposes could have been interpreted to encompass bona fide tax savings, and the specific exclusion in the current language referring to the tax benefit obviously suggests that obtaining a tax benefit is not necessarily and naturally excluded by bona fide purposes. However, the explanatory notes do not say that. Although in the context of subsection 245(2) they refer to the tax benefit, in the context of subsection 245(3) they refer repeatedly to bona fide non-tax purposes, potentially undermining the relativist view. 10 Another point to bear in mind in the context of a transaction that results in more than one tax benefit is that the possible interpretations of the language in subsection 245(3) seem to include construing the singular reference to a tax benefit to include the plural tax benefits (so that, consequentially, the singular reference to the tax benefit would also be construed to include the plural tax benefits ). 11 On that interpretation, a court could conclude that a transaction that results in more than one tax benefit is determined to be an avoidance transaction if obtaining those benefits aggregately constitutes as much or most of the driving force behind the transaction relative to other drivers which, at that point in the logic, would seemingly have 9 Canada, Department of Finance, Tax Reform 1987: Income Tax Reform (Ottawa: Department of Finance, June 18, 1987), Supra note Pursuant to section 33(2) of the federal Interpretation Act, RSC 1985, c. I-21, as amended, [w]ords in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular. Of course, section 15(2)(a) of that statute also provides that [w]here an enactment contains an interpretation section or provision, it shall be read and construed (a) as being applicable only if a contrary intention does not appear.

9 302 n canadian tax journal / revue fiscale canadienne (2009) vol. 57, n o 2 to be non-tax-benefit oriented drivers or, perhaps, a different set of tax-benefitoriented drivers. That is, there could be two variations on this theme. First, a court could lump together the desire(s) to obtain all tax benefits on the one hand, and all non-tax-benefit-oriented drivers on the other hand, and then compare the aggregate weights of the two groups. Alternatively, it seems possible that a court could conclude that the singular includes the plural but the plural need not be comprehensive, in the sense that the reference to a tax benefit could be construed to include some of the tax benefits resulting from the transaction but not necessarily all of them. For example, a court could approach the issue by seeking to determine whether there exist any number of tax benefits that together represent as much or most of the driving force, without then needing to look at any other tax-benefit-oriented drivers. In either case, it seems likely that the court would conclude that the transaction is an avoidance transaction with reference to the tax benefits in the relevant set. Under the first variation, this would be all of the contemplated tax benefits, such that the distinction between applying an absolutist approach and applying a relativistic approach would be relevant only for tax benefits that were not contemplated. Under the second variation, it appears that the distinction between applying an absolutist approach and applying a relativistic approach would be more significant, in the sense that tax benefits could be contemplated that are not included in the relevant set. Lip son Re v isited Before concluding, it is appropriate to revisit the decision of the Supreme Court in Lipson, given that it proceeded on the premise of multiple tax benefits. It seems fair to say that in Lipson, there was one transaction (the share transfer), or perhaps two transactions together (the borrowing and the share transfer), that resulted in two or, perhaps, three separate tax benefits: (1) the creation of the interest deduction (which we can call benefit a ); (2) the attribution of the interest deduction to Mr. Lipson ( benefit b ); and, perhaps, (3) the deferral of Mr. Lipson s gain on the share transfer ( benefit c ). 12 Because the existence of an avoidance transaction was not in issue, the decision did not directly address the application of subsection 245(3). However, the logic of the court s analysis may support certain inferences in that regard. What if the taxpayer had not conceded the existence of an avoidance transaction? What would have been the analysis under an absolutist approach and under a relativistic approach? Let us begin with some assumptions perhaps even alternate assumptions as to the relative force of the drivers. We can assume that there was no non-tax purpose (that is, passing growth in wealth to Mrs. Lipson), or we can assume that there was some such purpose but that it was not of sufficient force to be the primary purpose, since then the series of transactions would not have constituted 12 Interestingly, the court (the majority at least) only identified the first two as tax benefits: Lipson, supra note 5, at paragraph 22.

10 discerning an avoidance transaction n 303 an avoidance transaction in respect of any of the tax benefits. If we assume (for convenience) that there was no non-tax purpose, that leaves obtaining the tax benefits as the only purpose, and that purpose may or may not be a bona fide purpose. Let us also eliminate benefit c (the deferral of the gain on the share transfer), leaving only benefits a (the creation of the interest deduction) and b (the attribution of that deduction to Mr. Lipson) the same tax benefits identified by the court. As to the relative forces of these benefits, we can again make alternate assumptions. Either benefit a and benefit b had equal force, or one outweighed the other in driving the arrangement, resulting in three possibilities: 1. a = b, 2. a > b, or 3. a < b. Under an absolutist approach, in scenario 1, one can begin the analysis with either benefit a or benefit b. If we ask whether the transaction results in a tax benefit, the answer is yes in fact, two tax benefits, a and b. If we focus on benefit a (creating the deduction), we then consider the proposition that the transaction is an avoidance transaction unless it was undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit (benefit a). Since the other purpose (obtaining benefit b, the attribution of the deduction), even if it is a bona fide purpose, is not the primary purpose (since they are equal), the answer is that the transaction is an avoidance transaction with reference to benefit a. Moreover, as a consequence of taking the absolutist approach, the transaction is also an avoidance transaction with reference to benefit b. If one conducted the analysis focusing first on benefit b, the conclusion would be the same. Either way, since the transaction results in two tax benefits and obtaining each of them is an equal driver, so that there is no primary purpose, the transaction is an avoidance transaction in respect of both benefits. Interestingly, on these assumptions, the conclusion would also be the same under a relativistic approach, since one would do the same analysis as above for each of the two benefits. The only difference then, between the absolutist approach and the relativistic approach, where there are two tax benefits and they are equal drivers, is whether one has to bother testing the status of the transaction as an avoidance transaction with reference to the second tax benefit an exercise that seems to be pointless, since one will necessarily come to the same conclusion. In contrast, if the relative force of the two benefits is different (as in scenarios 2 and 3), then it does seem to matter whether an absolutist approach or a relativistic approach is used, unless neither benefit can be a bona fide purpose (that is, both are abusive). This is where things get interesting because, in Lipson, the court apparently concluded that benefit a (creating the deduction) was unimpeachable, while benefit b (the attribution) was abusive. 13 Let us then assume (although this does 13 Ibid., at paragraph 41.

11 304 n canadian tax journal / revue fiscale canadienne (2009) vol. 57, n o 2 not necessarily follow) that, because benefit a was unimpeachable, obtaining it would be a bona fide purpose; and, because benefit b was abusive, obtaining it could not be a bona fide purpose. In scenario 2, where a > b, the primary purpose is obtaining benefit a (creating the interest deduction), and obtaining benefit b (the attribution) is collateral to that purpose. If we apply an absolutist approach, the transaction is an avoidance transaction in respect of both benefits, because it results in a tax benefit (benefit a) and was not undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit (since obtaining benefit a is the main driver). The avoidance transaction analysis is then over, and both benefit a and benefit b must be tested under subsection 245(4). Since both benefits were tested under subsection 245(4) in Lipson, the decision is not inconsistent with the above analysis premised on an absolutist approach. Applying a relativistic approach in scenario 2 and returning to our original assumptions, with reference to benefit a, we would conclude that the transaction is an avoidance transaction because obtaining benefit a is the primary driver, and not a bona fide purpose. However, with reference to benefit b, we would conclude that the transaction is not an avoidance transaction because it was undertaken or arranged primarily for the purpose of obtaining benefit a (which is assumed to be a bona fide purpose), and that is not the tax benefit resulting from the transaction. If the court in Lipson had applied a relativistic approach, it could not have reversed benefit b (the attribution), or even tested it under subsection 245(4), if obtaining benefit a was the primary driver (which the court concluded was a bona fide purpose). Since the court did the exact opposite, the decision is not consistent with this approach on these assumptions. However, if one changes the assumptions, as we do in scenario 3, the answer changes. In this case, a < b: that is, the primary purpose is obtaining benefit b (the attribution), and benefit a (creating the interest deduction) is collateral. According to the reasoning of the court in Lipson, one would conclude, with reference to benefit b, that the transaction is an avoidance transaction because getting that benefit is the primary driver. One would also conclude that the transaction is an avoidance transaction with reference to benefit a, because the primary driver (obtaining benefit b) is not a bona fide purpose. However, according to Lipson, obtaining benefit b cannot be a bona fide purpose because it is abusive, and not necessarily because benefit b is a tax benefit. Thus, on these assumptions, the court s decision could be consistent with a relativistic approach. Accordingly, the court s decision is not inconsistent with an absolutist approach, on any assumptions other than that the primary driver was a non-tax purpose. The court s decision is not inconsistent with a relativistic approach on the assumption that either (1) the drivers were obtaining two tax benefits, and were of equal force, or (2) the main driver was benefit b (the attribution) and this is not a bona fide purpose with reference to benefit a (creating the deduction). However, the court s decision is not consistent with a relativistic approach on the assumption that the main driver was benefit a (creating the deduction), if this is a bona fide purpose with reference to benefit b (the attribution).

12 discerning an avoidance transaction n 305 Of course, since there was no discussion such as the above in the decision, these musings are only speculation. Moreover, we have not advanced very far, since the scenario in which the decision is inconsistent with a relativistic approach (scenario 2, where a > b) is not necessarily the most likely on the facts. That is, it is not necessarily most likely, on the facts as reported, that simply creating the deduction was the primary driver, and that the parties would have been as content if Mrs. Lipson had received both the dividend revenues and the benefit of the interest expense, and there had been no attribution, although perhaps an argument to that effect can be made. Attribution gave Mr. Lipson additional effective shelter or benefit over what Mrs. Lipson would have had (if she had been entitled to both the dividends and the interest expense) only to the extent that the interest expense exceeded the dividends, and only if he had other income to shelter and she did not. In other words, there would be significant benefit in creating the interest expense, because it would allow that much shelter to either party (and let us remember also the deferral on the gain); so maybe attribution would add little to the mix in terms of the real aggregate value of the separate tax benefits. Indeed, if both spouses had sufficient other income to absorb the interest deduction, it would matter little whether there was attribution and all the value of the benefit fell into the creation of the deduction. 14 On the other hand, perhaps it could also be argued that, from Mr. Lipson s singular perspective, the attribution was more important than the creation of the deduction, because he needed the attribution to get the deduction into his hands in order for him to have any benefit from it at all. That is, from his perspective exclusively, Mrs. Lipson s having the deduction would give him no benefit, so it could not be the primary driver. Only attribution would give him a benefit, so attribution must be at least equal as a driver from his perspective, such that we are in either scenario 1, where a = b, or scenario 3, where a < b. Co nclusion Where does this leave us? The question addressed in this article does not appear to have been squarely addressed in any of the jurisprudence, or in the explanatory notes or administrative practice, or in other commentary. This is surprising because it is difficult to view the question as being academic. It might well not have been academic in Lipson, had it been addressed. Moreover, it might well not be academic, for example, in situations involving the conversion of an income trust to corporate form. Arguably, transactions implemented to effect the conversion could be viewed as having a primary non-tax driver (that is, facilitating the more efficient and effective raising of capital) or a primary legitimate tax driver (that is, getting out of the 14 It was noted in the dissent of Binnie and Deschamps JJ that [t]his case... is not about income splitting (ibid., at paragraph 80), in a comment that suggests that the majority may also have agreed with this characterization.

13 306 n canadian tax journal / revue fiscale canadienne (2009) vol. 57, n o 2 sift rules, 15 assuming that this is or results in a tax benefit). If an absolutist approach is appropriate, and assuming that getting out of the sift rules is the primary driver, those transactions would be avoidance transactions with reference not only to the tax benefit of or resulting from getting out of the sift rules, but also with reference to any other tax benefits that may result from those transactions. In contrast, if a relativistic approach is adopted, and getting out of the sift rules is the primary driver and is regarded as a legitimate tax benefit and, therefore, as a bona fide purpose separate from obtaining any other tax benefit, then the transactions may not be avoidance transactions with reference to any such other tax benefit, such that no subsection 245(4) analysis should be required in that regard. However, all bets are off on this one if a court concludes that the singular reference in subsection 245(3) to a tax benefit includes the plural tax benefits. 15 The specified investment flow-through (SIFT) rules are anti-avoidance provisions applicable to certain trusts and partnerships: see sections and 197, and related provisions.

Justice Bowman s Decisions on the Deductibility of Interest

Justice Bowman s Decisions on the Deductibility of Interest canadian tax journal / revue fiscale canadienne (2010) vol. 58 (supp.) 211-23 Justice Bowman s Decisions on the Deductibility of Interest Howard J. Kellough* KEYWORDS: INTEREST DEDUCTIBILITY n CASES n

More information

This issue of the journal contains two separate Policy Forum contributions. The

This issue of the journal contains two separate Policy Forum contributions. The Editor s Introduction: The Supreme Court and the Interpretation of Tax Statutes This issue of the journal contains two separate Policy Forum contributions. The first is by Brian Arnold, and it is both

More information

Insights and Commentary from Dentons

Insights and Commentary from Dentons dentons.com Insights and Commentary from Dentons On March 31, 2013, three pre-eminent law firms Salans, Fraser Milner Casgrain, and SNR Denton combined to form Dentons, a Top 10 global law firm with more

More information

The Qualities of a Judge

The Qualities of a Judge canadian tax journal / revue fiscale canadienne (2010) vol. 58 (supp.) 55-62 The Qualities of a Judge Sheldon Silver* KEYWORDS: TAX CASES n REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PROFIT n INTEREST DEDUCTIBILITY C O

More information

Tax Alert Canada. TCC rejects mark-to-market accounting for option contracts. The decision

Tax Alert Canada. TCC rejects mark-to-market accounting for option contracts. The decision 2015 Issue No. 42 24 June 2015 Tax Alert Canada TCC rejects mark-to-market accounting for option contracts EY Tax Alerts cover significant tax news, developments and changes in legislation that affect

More information

Tax Court Holds PUC Averaging Strategy to Be Abusive Tax Avoidance

Tax Court Holds PUC Averaging Strategy to Be Abusive Tax Avoidance Tax Court Holds PUC Averaging Strategy to Be Abusive Tax Avoidance October 19, 2017 John G. Lorito With Canada s general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) celebrating its 30 th birthday next year, it is surprising

More information

Tax Alert Canada. FCA finds GAAR does not apply to post-acquisition PUC step-up planning: Univar Holdco Canada ULC v. The Queen, 2017 FCA 207

Tax Alert Canada. FCA finds GAAR does not apply to post-acquisition PUC step-up planning: Univar Holdco Canada ULC v. The Queen, 2017 FCA 207 2017 Issue No. 47 19 October 2017 Tax Alert Canada FCA finds GAAR does not apply to post-acquisition PUC step-up planning: Univar Holdco Canada ULC v. The Queen, 2017 FCA 207 EY Tax Alerts cover significant

More information

Personal Tax Planning

Personal Tax Planning Personal Tax Planning Co-Editors: T.R. Burpee* and P.E. Schusheim** ESTATE FREEZES INVOLVING TRUSTS Charles P. Marquette*** Trusts have a multitude of purposes and, in estate planning, can be used in conjunction

More information

Canada: Limitation on the Elimination of Double Taxation Under the Canada-Brazil Income Tax Treaty

Canada: Limitation on the Elimination of Double Taxation Under the Canada-Brazil Income Tax Treaty The Peter A. Allard School of Law Allard Research Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Publications 2017 Canada: Limitation on the Elimination of Double Taxation Under the Canada-Brazil Income Tax Treaty

More information

Buckwold and Kitunen, Canadian Income Taxation, Ed. 1. Tax planning and tax avoidance mean the same thing. Is this statement true? Explain.

Buckwold and Kitunen, Canadian Income Taxation, Ed. 1. Tax planning and tax avoidance mean the same thing. Is this statement true? Explain. Buckwold and Kitunen, Canadian Income Taxation, 2014-2015 Ed. CHAPTER 2 FUNDAMENTALS OF TAX PLANNING Review Questions 1. Tax planning and tax avoidance mean the same thing. Is this statement true? Explain.

More information

SHARE CAPITAL DESIGN. Evelyn (Evy) Moskowitz

SHARE CAPITAL DESIGN. Evelyn (Evy) Moskowitz SHARE CAPITAL DESIGN PRICE ADJUSTMENT CLAUSES Evelyn (Evy) Moskowitz MOSKOWITZ & MEREDITH LLP, an affiliate of KPMG LLP May 29, 2011 June 3, 2011 PRICE ADJUSTMENT CLAUSES * CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FOR TRANSFERRED

More information

THE MINISTER S BURDEN UNDER GAAR

THE MINISTER S BURDEN UNDER GAAR The Supreme Court of Canada and the General Anti-Avoidance Rule: Tax Avoidance after Canada Trustco and Mathew Faculty of Law University of Toronto November 18, 2005 THE MINISTER S BURDEN UNDER GAAR Daniel

More information

ONTARIO LIMITED. and. Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 25, Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 15, 2012.

ONTARIO LIMITED. and. Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 25, Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 15, 2012. Federal Court of Appeal Cour d'appel fédérale Date: 20121015 Docket: A-359-11 Citation: 2012 FCA 259 CORAM: NOËL J.A. SHARLOW J.A. MAINVILLE J.A. BETWEEN: 1207192 ONTARIO LIMITED and Appellant HER MAJESTY

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA253/04

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA253/04 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA253/04 BETWEEN AND JEFFREY GEORGE LOPAS AND LORRAINE ELIZABETH MCHERRON Appellants THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent Hearing: 16 November 2005 Court:

More information

UNANIMOUS SHAREHOLDER AGREEMENTS AND CCPC STATUS

UNANIMOUS SHAREHOLDER AGREEMENTS AND CCPC STATUS UNANIMOUS SHAREHOLDER AGREEMENTS AND CCPC STATUS Paul Lamarre* Published in Taxation Law, Vol. 21, No. 1, Ontario Bar Association Taxation Law Section Newsletter, October 2010 A corporation that qualifies

More information

Insights and Commentary from Dentons

Insights and Commentary from Dentons dentons.com Insights and Commentary from Dentons On March 31, 2013, three pre-eminent law firms Salans, Fraser Milner Casgrain, and SNR Denton combined to form Dentons, a Top 10 global law firm with more

More information

Fundy Settlement v. Canada: FINAL DECISION ON THE PROPER RESIDENCY TEST FOR TRUSTS

Fundy Settlement v. Canada: FINAL DECISION ON THE PROPER RESIDENCY TEST FOR TRUSTS Volume 22, No. 2 June 2012 Taxation Law Section Fundy Settlement v. Canada: FINAL DECISION ON THE PROPER RESIDENCY TEST FOR TRUSTS Jennifer Pocock* On April 12, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)

More information

Tax Alert Canada. Proposed changes to section 55. Background. Current section 55

Tax Alert Canada. Proposed changes to section 55. Background. Current section 55 2015 Issue No. 35 8 June 2015 Tax Alert Canada Proposed changes to section 55 EY Tax Alerts cover significant tax news, developments and changes in legislation that affect Canadian businesses. They act

More information

Magical Mystery Tour The Supreme Court s GAAR Cases

Magical Mystery Tour The Supreme Court s GAAR Cases Magical Mystery Tour The Supreme Court s GAAR Cases by David Louis, B. Com., J.D., C.A., Tax Partner Minden Gross LLP, a member of MERITAS Law Firms Worldwide. Thanks to the Minden Gross Toronto Tax Group

More information

119 T.C. No. 5 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. JOSEPH M. GREY PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, P.C., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

119 T.C. No. 5 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. JOSEPH M. GREY PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, P.C., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent 119 T.C. No. 5 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JOSEPH M. GREY PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, P.C., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 4789-00. Filed September 16, 2002. This is an action

More information

Recent Developments in International Taxation: Canada

Recent Developments in International Taxation: Canada Recent Developments in International Taxation: Canada Stephanie A. Wong July 15, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Recent Legislative Developments...3 (a) (b) (a) Outbound Planning...3 (i) Proposed Amendments

More information

Manitoba Law Reform Commission

Manitoba Law Reform Commission Manitoba Law Reform Commission 432-405 Broadway, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3C 3L6 T 204 945-2896 F 204 948-2184 Email: lawreform@gov.mb.ca http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/mlrc http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/mlrc

More information

Subsection 55(2) is an anti-avoidance rule intended to prevent the inappropriate reduction of a capital gain by way of the payment of a deductible

Subsection 55(2) is an anti-avoidance rule intended to prevent the inappropriate reduction of a capital gain by way of the payment of a deductible 1 2 Subsection 55(2) is an anti-avoidance rule intended to prevent the inappropriate reduction of a capital gain by way of the payment of a deductible intercorporate dividend. This provision generally

More information

The Taxation of Non-Registered Segregated Funds

The Taxation of Non-Registered Segregated Funds The Taxation of Non-Registered Segregated Funds Segregated funds (also referred to as individual variable insurance contracts, or IVICs) are an appropriate part of many Canadians portfolios. In very simple

More information

and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Appeal heard on June 6, 2013, at Edmonton, Alberta. Before: The Honourable Justice David E. Graham

and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Appeal heard on June 6, 2013, at Edmonton, Alberta. Before: The Honourable Justice David E. Graham BETWEEN: D & D LIVESTOCK LTD., and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Docket: 2011-137(IT)G Appellant, Respondent. Appeal heard on June 6, 2013, at Edmonton, Alberta. Appearances: Before: The Honourable Justice David

More information

The Supreme Court of Canada and the General Anti-Avoidance Rule: Canada Trustco and Mathew

The Supreme Court of Canada and the General Anti-Avoidance Rule: Canada Trustco and Mathew The Peter A. Allard School of Law Allard Research Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2006 The Supreme Court of Canada and the General Anti-Avoidance Rule: Canada Trustco and Mathew David

More information

Appeal heard on May 9 to 12, 2016, at Vancouver, British Columbia. Before: The Honourable Eugene P. Rossiter, Chief Justice

Appeal heard on May 9 to 12, 2016, at Vancouver, British Columbia. Before: The Honourable Eugene P. Rossiter, Chief Justice BETWEEN: Docket: 2013-4033(IT)G 594710 BRITISH COLUMBIA LTD., Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent. Appeal heard on May 9 to 12, 2016, at Vancouver, British Columbia Appearances: Before: The

More information

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada, 2005 SCC 54 [2005] S.C.J. No. 56 DATE: 20051019 DOCKET: 30290 BETWEEN: Her Majesty the Queen Appellant v. Canada Trustco Mortgage

More information

Tax Treaty Abuse and the Principal Purpose Test: Part II

Tax Treaty Abuse and the Principal Purpose Test: Part II The Peter A. Allard School of Law Allard Research Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Publications 10-15-2018 Tax Treaty Abuse and the Principal Purpose Test: Part II David G. Duff Allard School of Law

More information

COPTHORNE: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA S LATEST VIEWS ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND GAAR 1

COPTHORNE: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA S LATEST VIEWS ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND GAAR 1 Volume 22, No. 2 June 2012 Taxation Law Section COPTHORNE: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA S LATEST VIEWS ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND GAAR 1 Ed Kroft and Deborah Toaze* Overview On December 16, 2011, the Supreme

More information

TAXPAYERS, PUT UP YOUR DUKE(S) : SCC SPEAKS ON GAAR

TAXPAYERS, PUT UP YOUR DUKE(S) : SCC SPEAKS ON GAAR OCTOBER 20, 2005 TAXPAYERS, PUT UP YOUR DUKE(S) : SCC SPEAKS ON GAAR On October 19, 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ( SCC ) released two muchanticipated decisions considering the general anti-avoidance

More information

Reverse Conversions of Mutual Fund Trusts to Corporations: Treatment of Outstanding Trust Unit Options

Reverse Conversions of Mutual Fund Trusts to Corporations: Treatment of Outstanding Trust Unit Options Anu Nijhawan, Taxation of Executive Compensation and Retirement (2006), Reverse Co... Page 1 of 7 SIFT PROPOSALS Federated Press Reverse Conversions of Mutual Fund Trusts to Corporations: Treatment of

More information

Citation for published version (APA): du Toit, C. P. (1999). Beneficial Ownership of Royalties in Bilateral Tax Treaties Amsterdam: IBFD

Citation for published version (APA): du Toit, C. P. (1999). Beneficial Ownership of Royalties in Bilateral Tax Treaties Amsterdam: IBFD UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Beneficial Ownership of Royalties in Bilateral Tax Treaties du Toit, C.P. Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): du Toit, C. P. (1999). Beneficial

More information

Canadian Federal Court of Appeal denies Canada Revenue Agency request for tax working papers

Canadian Federal Court of Appeal denies Canada Revenue Agency request for tax working papers 4 April 2017 Global Tax Alert News from Americas Tax Center Canadian Federal Court of Appeal denies Canada Revenue Agency request for tax working papers EY Global Tax Alert Library The EY Americas Tax

More information

The relevant statutory regime

The relevant statutory regime 2017 Issue No. 24 05 June 2017 Tax Alert Canada FCA affirms release of trapped limited partnership losses in multi-tiered partnerships EY Tax Alerts cover significant tax news, developments and changes

More information

RECENT TAX AVOIDANCE JURISPRUDENCE

RECENT TAX AVOIDANCE JURISPRUDENCE RECENT TAX AVOIDANCE JURISPRUDENCE Prepared for: 2014 CPTS Annual Conference Christopher J. Montes Felesky Flynn LLP June 4, 2014 AGENDA Pièces Automobiles Lecavalier (debt forgiveness/parking) Lehigh

More information

Buckwold and Kitunen, Canadian Income Taxation, Ed. 2. What distinguishes tax evasion from tax avoidance and tax planning?

Buckwold and Kitunen, Canadian Income Taxation, Ed. 2. What distinguishes tax evasion from tax avoidance and tax planning? Buckwold and Kitunen, Canadian Income Taxation, 2016-2017 Ed. CHAPTER 2 FUNDAMENTALS OF TAX PLANNING Review Questions 1. Tax planning and tax avoidance mean the same thing. Is this statement true? Explain.

More information

KPMG report: Initial impressions, proposed regulations implementing anti-hybrid provisions of new tax law

KPMG report: Initial impressions, proposed regulations implementing anti-hybrid provisions of new tax law KPMG report: Initial impressions, proposed regulations implementing anti-hybrid provisions of new tax law December 21, 2018 kpmg.com 1 The U.S. Treasury Department and IRS on December 20, 2018, released

More information

An Update on Implementation of New Management Contract Safe Harbors for Property Financed with Tax-Exempt Bonds

An Update on Implementation of New Management Contract Safe Harbors for Property Financed with Tax-Exempt Bonds An Update on Implementation of New Management Contract Safe Harbors for Property Financed with Tax-Exempt Bonds (Rev. Proc. 2017-13) Michael G. Bailey Foley & Lardner LLP An Update on Implementation of

More information

Workplace Health and Safety Law in Australia Update No 2

Workplace Health and Safety Law in Australia Update No 2 University of Newcastle - Australia From the SelectedWorks of Neil J Foster October, 2012 Workplace Health and Safety Law in Australia Update No 2 Neil J Foster Available at: https://works.bepress.com/neil_foster/61/

More information

and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Appeal heard on October 23, 2013, at Halifax, Nova Scotia By: The Honourable Justice Campbell J.

and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Appeal heard on October 23, 2013, at Halifax, Nova Scotia By: The Honourable Justice Campbell J. BETWEEN: WARD CARSON, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Docket: 2011-1382(IT)I Appellant, Respondent. Appeal heard on October 23, 2013, at Halifax, Nova Scotia Appearances: By: The Honourable Justice Campbell

More information

General Comments. Action 6 on Treaty Abuse reads as follows:

General Comments. Action 6 on Treaty Abuse reads as follows: OECD Centre on Tax Policy and Administration Tax Treaties Transfer Pricing and Financial Transactions Division 2, rue André Pascal 75775 Paris France The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise: Comments on

More information

Inside. Lipson (SCC) A Unanimously Divided Number 1924 Supreme Court. Introduction. The Facts in Lipson. January 22, 2009

Inside. Lipson (SCC) A Unanimously Divided Number 1924 Supreme Court. Introduction. The Facts in Lipson. January 22, 2009 January 22, 2009 Lipson (SCC) A Unanimously Divided Number 1924 Supreme Court Introduction It seems that the entire tax community is aflutter over the Supreme Court s recent decision against the taxpayers

More information

Article 20. Other Requirements

Article 20. Other Requirements 1 ARTICLE 20... 1 1.1 Text of Article 20... 1 1.2 General, including burden of proof... 1 1.3 Article 20... 2 1.3.1 "special requirements"... 2 1.3.2 "encumber"... 3 1.3.3 "in the course of trade"... 3

More information

TAX NEWSLETTER. July 2018

TAX NEWSLETTER. July 2018 TAX NEWSLETTER July 2018 INTEREST EXPENSE AND DISAPPEARING SOURCE RULE INTEREST EXPENSE AND DIRECT USE RULE TRANSFERS BETWEEN RELATED PERSONS TAX-FREE TRANSFERS TO YOUR CORPORATION AROUND THE COURTS INTEREST

More information

The Significance of Commercial and Accounting Principles in Canadian Tax Cases

The Significance of Commercial and Accounting Principles in Canadian Tax Cases canadian tax journal / revue fiscale canadienne (2010) vol. 58 (supp.) 101-9 The Significance of Commercial and Accounting Principles in Canadian Tax Cases Paul K. Tamaki and Gabrielle Richards* KEYWORDS:

More information

The Joint Committee on Taxation of The Canadian Bar Association and Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada

The Joint Committee on Taxation of The Canadian Bar Association and Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada The Joint Committee on Taxation of The Canadian Bar Association and Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada, 277 Wellington St. W., Toronto Ontario, M5V3H2

More information

THE GAAR. Ed Kroft Q.C. Ian MacGregor, Q.C. Wayne Adams Ed Harris Q.C. Tax Law for Lawyers Niagara-on-the-Lake June 2, 2010

THE GAAR. Ed Kroft Q.C. Ian MacGregor, Q.C. Wayne Adams Ed Harris Q.C. Tax Law for Lawyers Niagara-on-the-Lake June 2, 2010 THE GAAR Ed Kroft Q.C. Ian MacGregor, Q.C. Wayne Adams Ed Harris Q.C. Tax Law for Lawyers Niagara-on-the-Lake June 2, 2010 Introduction Over 20 years since GAAR was announced (June 1987 Tax Reform) and

More information

Case Comment: Carrigan v. Carrigan Estate- Changing the Face of Pension Beneficiaries

Case Comment: Carrigan v. Carrigan Estate- Changing the Face of Pension Beneficiaries January 2013 Family Law Section Case Comment: Carrigan v. Carrigan Estate- Changing the Face of Pension Beneficiaries Malerie Rose* On October 31, 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision

More information

Subject to being issued as a final ruling, Draft TR 2017/D10 arguably resolves many of the uncertainties surrounding trust vesting.

Subject to being issued as a final ruling, Draft TR 2017/D10 arguably resolves many of the uncertainties surrounding trust vesting. Tax Office plays secret Santa as the long awaited guidance on trust vesting gets released - by Matthew Burgess and Patrick Ellwood, Directors, View Legal As it seems is tradition, the Tax Office has delivered

More information

FINANCING ISSUES. Evelyn (Evy) Moskowitz

FINANCING ISSUES. Evelyn (Evy) Moskowitz FINANCING ISSUES FINANCING OF NON-RESIDENTS AND SECTION 17 Evelyn (Evy) Moskowitz Moskowitz & Meredith LLP, an affiliate of KPMG LLP May 29, 2011 June 3, 2011 2 FINANCING OF NON-RESIDENTS AND SECTION 17

More information

International Financial Reporting Standard 10. Consolidated Financial Statements

International Financial Reporting Standard 10. Consolidated Financial Statements International Financial Reporting Standard 10 Consolidated Financial Statements CONTENTS BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS ON IFRS 10 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INTRODUCTION The structure of IFRS 10 and the

More information

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS. -and- Tribunal: JUDGE HOWARD M. NOWLAN

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS. -and- Tribunal: JUDGE HOWARD M. NOWLAN FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL TAX Appeal Number: TC/2014/01582 THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS -and- Applicants C JENKIN AND SON LTD Respondents Tribunal: JUDGE HOWARD M. NOWLAN Sitting at

More information

The Intergenerational Wealth Transfer of Life Insurance Policies (Cascading Policies)

The Intergenerational Wealth Transfer of Life Insurance Policies (Cascading Policies) The Intergenerational Wealth Transfer of Life Insurance Policies (Cascading Policies) This document will review the tax issues associated with Cascading Policies. This is the terminology used to describe

More information

A Guide to Segregation

A Guide to Segregation A Guide to Segregation 1 / Introduction In theory the tax rules surrounding superannuation balances that support pensions are very simple : no tax is paid on the investment income they generate. This income

More information

Comments on Public Discussion Draft: Clarification of the Meaning of Beneficial Owner in the OECD Model Tax Convention

Comments on Public Discussion Draft: Clarification of the Meaning of Beneficial Owner in the OECD Model Tax Convention Deloitte & Touche LLP Certified Public Accountants Unique Entity No. T080LL0721A 6 Shenton Way #32-00 DBS Building Tower Two Singapore 068809 Our Ref: 2944/MD Tel: +65 6224 8288 Fax: +65 6538 6166 www.deloitte.com/sg

More information

Utilization of Tax Losses And Debt Restructuring. January 13, 2009 James A. Hutchinson

Utilization of Tax Losses And Debt Restructuring. January 13, 2009 James A. Hutchinson Utilization of Tax Losses And Debt Restructuring January 13, 2009 James A. Hutchinson Triggering Accrued Losses -- The Stop-loss Rules Triggering Accrued Losses - The Stop-loss Rules (Cont d) The Old Rules

More information

Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters Fourteenth session

Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters Fourteenth session Distr.: General * March 2017 Original: English Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters Fourteenth session New York, 3-6 April 2017 Agenda item 3(a)(ii) BEPS: Proposed General Anti-avoidance

More information

PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DISCUSSION DRAFT ON THE ATTRIBUTION OF PROFITS TO PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENTS PART I (GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS) 1

PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DISCUSSION DRAFT ON THE ATTRIBUTION OF PROFITS TO PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENTS PART I (GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS) 1 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DISCUSSION DRAFT ON THE ATTRIBUTION OF PROFITS TO PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENTS PART I (GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS) 1 Goodmans LLP 2 Summary of the Proceedings of an Invitational

More information

PART XVI TAX AVOIDANCE

PART XVI TAX AVOIDANCE Income Tax Act ( 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) ) Disclaimer: These documents are not the official versions (more). Act current to October 23rd, 2008 Attention: See coming into force provision and notes, where

More information

CHOICE OF BUSINESS VEHICLES

CHOICE OF BUSINESS VEHICLES THE CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION CLE Seminar "Tax Law for Lawyers" May 30 to June 4, 2010 Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario CHOICE OF BUSINESS VEHICLES AN ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF INCOME TAX DISTINCTIONS By Richard

More information

Use of Corporate Partner Stock and Options to Compensate Service Partners -- Part 1 by: Sheldon I. Banoff

Use of Corporate Partner Stock and Options to Compensate Service Partners -- Part 1 by: Sheldon I. Banoff Use of Corporate Partner Stock and Options to Compensate Service Partners -- Part 1 by: Sheldon I. Banoff Many corporations conduct subsidiary business operations or joint ventures through general or limited

More information

PROPOSED GENERAL ANTI-AVOIDANCE RULE COMMENTARY FOR A NEW ARTICLE

PROPOSED GENERAL ANTI-AVOIDANCE RULE COMMENTARY FOR A NEW ARTICLE Distr.: General 30 November 2016 Original: English Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters Thirteenth Session New York, 5-8 December 2016 Item 3 (a) (iii) of the provisional agenda*

More information

Correspondence. (2000), Vol. 48, No. 3 / n o 3 867

Correspondence. (2000), Vol. 48, No. 3 / n o 3 867 Correspondence To the Editor: Re: June 5 Motion Addressing Section 17 Anomalies The June 5, 2000 notice of ways and means motion 1 contains changes to section 17 of the Income Tax Act 2 that correct certain

More information

The Long, Slow, Steady Demise of the General Anti-Avoidance Rule

The Long, Slow, Steady Demise of the General Anti-Avoidance Rule The Long, Slow, Steady Demise of the General Anti-Avoidance Rule Brian J. Arnold* KEYWORDS: GENERAL ANTI-AVOIDANCE RULE CONTENTS Introduction 488 Misconceptions About the General Nature of the GAAR 489

More information

Re: Adoption of Proposed Amendments to OSC Rule

Re: Adoption of Proposed Amendments to OSC Rule Stikeman Elliott LLP Barristers & Solicitors 5300 Commerce Court West, 199 Bay Street, Toronto, Canada M5L 1B9 Tel: (416) 869-5500 Fax: (416) 947-0866 www.stikeman.com DIRECT DIAL : (416) 869-5596 DIRECT

More information

The Irish GAAR 2015 Tax Nerd Version

The Irish GAAR 2015 Tax Nerd Version The Irish GAAR 2015 Tax Nerd Version To the world we re a tax haven. In fact we have quite onerous anti-avoidance legislation most notably our GAAR, but we ve traditionally eschewed talking about anti

More information

THE HIGH COURT DECISION IN SMALLWOOD. Philip Baker

THE HIGH COURT DECISION IN SMALLWOOD. Philip Baker THE HIGH COURT DECISION IN SMALLWOOD Philip Baker On 8 th April 2009 the High Court overturned the decision of the Special Commissioners in the case of Smallwood and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty

More information

TODAY S TRUSTS FOR ESTATE PLANNING

TODAY S TRUSTS FOR ESTATE PLANNING TODAY S TRUSTS FOR ESTATE PLANNING Jana Steele and Mariana Silva* There are a variety of options available to individuals who are interested in using trusts as part of their estate plan. This paper discusses

More information

WTO ANALYTICAL INDEX SCM Agreement Article 3 (Jurisprudence)

WTO ANALYTICAL INDEX SCM Agreement Article 3 (Jurisprudence) 1 ARTICLE 3... 2 1.1 Text of Article 3... 2 1.2 General... 2 1.3 "Except as provided in the Agreement on Agriculture"... 3 1.4 Article 3.1(a)... 3 1.4.1 General... 3 1.4.2 "contingent in law upon export

More information

Partnerships and the Foreign Affiliate Regime

Partnerships and the Foreign Affiliate Regime Partnerships and the Foreign Affiliate Regime John J. Tobin and Tony R. Vacca Presented at the Federated Press, Foreign Affiliates Conference, November 16, 2000 INTRODUCTION A Canadian corporation that

More information

Policy Forum: Canada s Anti-Treaty- Shopping Proposals and International Treaty Obligations

Policy Forum: Canada s Anti-Treaty- Shopping Proposals and International Treaty Obligations canadian tax journal / revue fiscale canadienne (2014) 62:3, 705-28 Policy Forum: Canada s Anti-Treaty- Shopping Proposals and International Treaty Obligations Ken Snider* Keywords: General anti-avoidance

More information

created by provisions in the taxpayer s Will;

created by provisions in the taxpayer s Will; The Navigator R B C W E A L T H M A N A G E M E N T S E R V I C E S The Testamentary Spousal Trust An Income Splitting Strategy In an age where people feel that they are taxed more and more every day,

More information

On August 4, 2006, the Treasury and the IRS

On August 4, 2006, the Treasury and the IRS January February 2007 Anti-Deferral and Anti-Tax Avoidance By Howard J. Levine and Michael J. Miller Proposed Regulations Clarifying the Technical Taxpayer Rule Don t Pass the Giggle Test INTERNATIONAL

More information

IRS SUMMONS ISSUED AT CANADA'S REQUEST ENFORCEABLE EVEN THOUGH INFORMATION WOULD ALSO BE USED FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION PURPOSES IN CANADA

IRS SUMMONS ISSUED AT CANADA'S REQUEST ENFORCEABLE EVEN THOUGH INFORMATION WOULD ALSO BE USED FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION PURPOSES IN CANADA Setright: Recent Developments IRS SUMMONS ISSUED AT CANADA'S REQUEST ENFORCEABLE EVEN THOUGH INFORMATION WOULD ALSO BE USED FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION PURPOSES IN CANADA I. INTRODUCTION The United States-Canada

More information

Taxation/2004 Volume 153/Issue 3962, 17 June 2004/Articles/A Brave New World? - Taxation, 17 Jun 2004, 298. Taxation. Taxation, 17 Jun 2004, 298

Taxation/2004 Volume 153/Issue 3962, 17 June 2004/Articles/A Brave New World? - Taxation, 17 Jun 2004, 298. Taxation. Taxation, 17 Jun 2004, 298 Page 1 Taxation/2004 Volume 153/Issue 3962, 17 June 2004/Articles/A Brave New World? - Taxation, 17 Jun 2004, 298 A Brave New World? Management Expenses Taxation Taxation, 17 Jun 2004, 298 17 June 2004

More information

Order F17-08 MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL. Celia Francis Adjudicator. February 21, 2017

Order F17-08 MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL. Celia Francis Adjudicator. February 21, 2017 Order F17-08 MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL Celia Francis Adjudicator February 21, 2017 CanLII Cite: 2017 BCIPC 09 Quicklaw Cite: [2017] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 09 Summary: The Ministry disclosed

More information

Wealth Transfer. Shark Fin CHARITABLE LEAD ANNUITY TRUST

Wealth Transfer. Shark Fin CHARITABLE LEAD ANNUITY TRUST Wealth Transfer Shark Fin CHARITABLE LEAD ANNUITY TRUST 2 SHARK FIN: CHARITABLE LEAD ANNUITY TRUST Shark Fin CLAT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Charitable Lead Annuity Trust (CLAT) pays a fixed amount of the trust

More information

UNITED STATES FINAL DUMPING DETERMINATION ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER FROM CANADA. Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada (AB )

UNITED STATES FINAL DUMPING DETERMINATION ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER FROM CANADA. Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada (AB ) WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION Third Participant Submission to the Appellate Body UNITED STATES FINAL DUMPING DETERMINATION ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER FROM CANADA (AB-2006-3) THIRD PARTICIPANT SUBMISSION OF NEW ZEALAND

More information

Employee Life and Health Trusts - Where do they Fit?*

Employee Life and Health Trusts - Where do they Fit?* Employee Life and Health Trusts - Where do they Fit?* By** Kevin Wark, LL.B, CLU, TEP, Hélène Marquis, LL.L., D. Fisc., Pl. Fin. TEP Florence Marino, B.A., LL.B., TEP Introduction On February 26, 2010

More information

THE PURPOSE OF SUBSECTION 55(2)

THE PURPOSE OF SUBSECTION 55(2) THE PURPOSE OF SUBSECTION 55(2) Eoin Brady, CPA, CA PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Toronto Gwendolyn Watson PwC Law LLP Toronto 2015 Ontario Tax Conference The Purpose of Subsection 55(2) Eoin Brady, PricewaterhouseCoopers

More information

TRANSACTIONS OF SOCIETY OF ACTUARIES 1967 VOL. 19 PT. 2 NO. 54 TRANSACTIONS JUNE, 1957 DIGEST OF REPORTS ON TOPICS OF CURRENT INTEREST

TRANSACTIONS OF SOCIETY OF ACTUARIES 1967 VOL. 19 PT. 2 NO. 54 TRANSACTIONS JUNE, 1957 DIGEST OF REPORTS ON TOPICS OF CURRENT INTEREST TRANSACTIONS OF SOCIETY OF ACTUARIES 1967 VOL. 19 PT. 2 NO. 54 VoL XIX, PART II TRANSACTIONS JUNE, 1957 MEETING No. 54 DIGEST OF REPORTS ON TOPICS OF CURRENT INTEREST CARTER COMMISSION REPORT MR. WELBURN

More information

APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 24 (NON-DISCRIMINATION) Public discussion draft. 3 May 2007

APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 24 (NON-DISCRIMINATION) Public discussion draft. 3 May 2007 ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 24 (NON-DISCRIMINATION) Public discussion draft 3 May 2007 CENTRE FOR TAX POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION 1 3

More information

CROSS-BORDER FINANCE Controlled Foreign Corporations

CROSS-BORDER FINANCE Controlled Foreign Corporations CROSS-BORDER FINANCE Controlled Foreign Corporations Gabriel Yomi Dabiri October 20, 2017 CONTROLLED FOREIGN CORPORATIONS The Deemed Dividend Dilemma October 20, 2017 Learning Objectives 1. Discuss the

More information

October 2017 Tax Newsletter

October 2017 Tax Newsletter FRUITMAN KATES LLP CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS 1055 EGLINTON AVENUE WEST TORONTO, ONTARIO M6C 2C9 TEL: 416.920.3434 FAX: 416.920.7799 www.fruitman.ca Email: info@fruitman.ca October 2017 Tax Newsletter

More information

Highland Foundry Ltd. v. R. Highland Foundry Ltd. v. Her Majesty The Queen. Tax Court of Canada. McArthur J.T.C.C. Judgment: August 15, 1994

Highland Foundry Ltd. v. R. Highland Foundry Ltd. v. Her Majesty The Queen. Tax Court of Canada. McArthur J.T.C.C. Judgment: August 15, 1994 Highland Foundry Ltd. v. R. Highland Foundry Ltd. v. Her Majesty The Queen Tax Court of Canada McArthur J.T.C.C. Judgment: August 15, 1994 Year: 1994 Docket: Court File No. 92-264 Counsel: T.C. Armstrong

More information

Related Party Disclosures

Related Party Disclosures IAS 24 IASB documents published to accompany International Accounting Standard 24 Related Party Disclosures The text of the unaccompanied IAS 24 is contained in Part A of this edition. Its effective date

More information

Judicial and Legislative Developments Threaten Indirect Canadian Acquisitions. Reprinted from Tax Notes Int l, October 10, 2016, p.

Judicial and Legislative Developments Threaten Indirect Canadian Acquisitions. Reprinted from Tax Notes Int l, October 10, 2016, p. taxnotes Judicial and Legislative Developments Threaten Indirect Canadian Acquisitions by Nathan Boidman Reprinted from Tax Notes Int l, October 10, 2016, p. 163 international Volume 84, Number 2 October

More information

THE SIX-MINUTE Real Estate Lawyer 2017

THE SIX-MINUTE Real Estate Lawyer 2017 TAB 2 THE SIX-MINUTE Real Estate Lawyer 2017 Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and Related Record-Keeping Candace Cooper Daoust Vukovich LLP November 21, 2017 Presented

More information

Bumps on the Road to the Bump: Deficiencies in the Specified Property Exception. by Geoffrey S. Turner, of Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP*

Bumps on the Road to the Bump: Deficiencies in the Specified Property Exception. by Geoffrey S. Turner, of Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP* Bumps on the Road to the Bump: Deficiencies in the Specified Property Exception by Geoffrey S. Turner, of Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP* *I would like to acknowledge the helpful comments on this

More information

A Tax Policy Perspective on Corporate Residence

A Tax Policy Perspective on Corporate Residence A Tax Policy Perspective on Corporate Residence Brian J. Arnold* KEYWORDS: INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CORPORATE TAXES RESIDENCY In the preface to Corporate Residence and International Taxation, Robert Couzin

More information

Overview. General Anti-Avoidance Rule. The Role of a General Anti-Avoidance Rule in Protecting the Tax Base of Developing Countries

Overview. General Anti-Avoidance Rule. The Role of a General Anti-Avoidance Rule in Protecting the Tax Base of Developing Countries The Role of a General Anti-Avoidance Rule in Protecting the Tax Base of Developing Countries Thursday, 9 November 2017 (Session 1) Capacity Building Unit Financing for Development Office Department of

More information

MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE. and ROBERT MCNALLY. Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.

MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE. and ROBERT MCNALLY. Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties. CORAM: NEAR J.A. DE MONTIGNY J.A. Date: 20151106 Docket: A-358-15 Citation: 2015 FCA 248 BETWEEN: MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE and Appellant ROBERT MCNALLY Respondent Dealt with in writing without appearance

More information

All legislative references are to the Income Tax Act 2007 unless otherwise stated.

All legislative references are to the Income Tax Act 2007 unless otherwise stated. QUESTION WE VE BEEN ASKED QB 15/04 INCOME TAX WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE DISPOSAL OF LAND THAT IS PART OF AN UNDERTAKING OR SCHEME INVOLVING DEVELOPMENT OR DIVISION WILL NOT GIVE RISE TO INCOME, EVEN

More information

Court rejects statutory duty of utmost good faith

Court rejects statutory duty of utmost good faith Court rejects statutory duty of utmost good faith Overview The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland in Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited (No 2) 1 provides useful guidance

More information

HOSPITAL APPEAL BOARD. In the matter of DR. IMRAN SAMAD. And

HOSPITAL APPEAL BOARD. In the matter of DR. IMRAN SAMAD. And HOSPITAL APPEAL BOARD In the matter of DR. IMRAN SAMAD And PROVINCIAL HEALTH SERVICES AUTHORITY and THE CHILDREN S AND WOMEN S HEALTH CENTRE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA DECISION ON DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS On January

More information

Generation Shifting and the Principle of Continuity in Norwegian Tax Law

Generation Shifting and the Principle of Continuity in Norwegian Tax Law DOI: 10.1515/ntaxj-2014-0005 Nordic Tax Journal 2014:1 Generation Shifting and the Principle of Continuity in Norwegian Tax Law Articles Professor University of Oslo Abstract: With effect as from 1st January

More information

- and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE SWAMI RAGHAVAN. Sitting in public at the Royal Courts of Justice, London on 4 December 2015

- and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE SWAMI RAGHAVAN. Sitting in public at the Royal Courts of Justice, London on 4 December 2015 Appeal number: TC/14/06012 INCOME TAX Funded Unapproved Retirement Benefit Scheme (FURBS) trustees of FURBS invested in LLP engaged in trade of property development - whether profits from LLP exempt from

More information

Appeal heard on June 8, 2015, at Toronto, Ontario. Before: The Honourable Justice Valerie Miller. Michael Colborne. Tamara Watters JUDGMENT

Appeal heard on June 8, 2015, at Toronto, Ontario. Before: The Honourable Justice Valerie Miller. Michael Colborne. Tamara Watters JUDGMENT BETWEEN: Docket: 2013-2834(IT)G UNIVAR HOLDCO CANADA ULC, Appellant, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent. Appearances: Appeal heard on June 8, 2015, at Toronto, Ontario Before: The Honourable Justice

More information

ORDER PO Appeal PA Peterborough Regional Health Centre. June 30, 2016

ORDER PO Appeal PA Peterborough Regional Health Centre. June 30, 2016 ORDER PO-3627 Appeal PA15-399 Peterborough Regional Health Centre June 30, 2016 Summary: The appellant, a journalist, sought records relating to the termination of the employment of several employees of

More information