Team Members ()

Publications ()

News ()

Pages ()

Services ()

  • Our Team

    Our Team

    • Lawyers & Clerks
    • Leadership Team
    • Board of Directors
    • Human Resources
    • Marketing & Business Development
    • Paraprofessional Services
  • Our Services

    Our Services

    • Service Areas
      • Aboriginal and Indigenous Law
      • Administrative Law
      • Agribusiness
      • Banking and Financial Services
      • Bankruptcy and Insolvency
      • Business Disputes
      • Business Immigration
      • Class Actions
      • Construction Law
      • Corporate and Business
      • Corporate Finance and Securities
      • Corporate Governance and Compliance
      • Cross-Border Law
      • Education Law
      • ESG (Environmental, Social, & Governance)
      • Estates and Trusts
      • Environmental Law
      • Foreign Direct Investment
      • Franchise Law
      • Health Law
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property
      • Labour and Employment
      • Litigation
      • Maritime Law
      • Media & Entertainment
      • Municipal Law
      • P3 and Infrastructure
      • Pensions and Benefits
      • Privacy, Data Protection and Cyber Security
      • Public Law
      • Real Estate
      • Regulation of Professions
      • SISIP LTD Allowances Class Action
      • Tax
      • Technology
      • View All
    • Industries
      • Cannabis
      • Construction & Property Development
      • Emerging & High Growth Companies
      • Energy & Natural Resources
      • Financial Services
      • Government & Institutions
      • Insurance
      • Manufacturing, Processing & Sales
      • Mining
      • Ocean Economy
      • Private Clients
      • Technology
      • View All
    • More Services
      • MC Advisory
      • MC Legal Lab
  • Our Insights
  • Our Firm

    Our Firm

    • Our Values
    • Our History
    • Our Representative Work
    • Our Global Reach
    • Our News
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Collective Social Responsibility
    • Pro Bono Program
  • Our Careers

    Our Careers

    • Lawyer Opportunities
    • Business Professional Opportunities
    • Paralegal & Legal Assistant Opportunities
    • Summer Student & Articling Opportunities
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Collective Social Responsibility
  • 1.866.439.6246
  • Contact
  • Search
  • Stay Updated
  • Contact Us
  • LexMundi World Ready
  • Privacy Policy
  • http://linkedin.com
  • http://facebook.com
  • http://twitter.com
  • 1.866.439.6246
Home > Our Insights > Comment on Copthorne Holdings Limited V. The Queen
Publication

Comment on Copthorne Holdings Limited V. The Queen

Published:

December 16, 2011

Author(s):

  • Private: Edwin Harris

Share

Print

In a unanimous decision rendered by Justice Rothstein, the Supreme Court of Canada today dismissed the appeal of Copthorne Holdings Limited, applying the General Anti Avoidance Rule (“GAAR”). While confirming the result reached in this case by the Tax Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court provided further systematic analysis of the application of the GAAR.   The three elements required for an application of the GAAR to nullify the tax effect of a series of transactions that meets the specific requirements of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) are:   1. The existence of a “tax benefit”; 2. An “avoidance transaction”, being a transaction, or one in a series of transactions, that was entered into primarily to obtain a “tax benefit”; and 3. “Abuse” of the Act or of any its provisions.   To simplify the factual background, a non-resident parent corporation: (A) invested some $96,000,000 in the shares of a Canadian subsidiary (B), which, under the Act, became the paid-up capital (PUC) of those shares. B in turn invested some $67,000,000 of that amount in the shares of its Canadian subsidiary (C), which would be the paid-up capital of C’s shares.   The amount of a corporation’s PUC is important for tax purposes because, for example, on redemption of its shares a dividend, giving rise to potential tax, is only deemed to occur to the extent that the redemption proceeds exceed the PUC of the redeemed shares. If B and C had amalgamated at a time when they were parent and subsidiary, under the Act C’s PUC would disappear, and the PUC of the amalgamated company would be $96,000,000.   In 1993-94, the result of a number of transactions was that B sold its shares of C (which had declined in value) to A. Consequently the PUC of the shares of B and of C remained unchanged. In response to certain proposed tax changes, B and C were amalgamated in 1995. Under the Act (apart from the GAAR) the amalgamation would preserve the PUCs of both B and C, resulting in a PUC of some $163,000,000 in the shares of the amalgamated corporation. These shares could then be redeemed for up to that amount without causing a deemed dividend. The shares in fact were redeemed in the hands of A in 1995, and the taxpayers took the position that there was no deemed dividend because of the high PUC of the redeemed shares. Invoking the GAAR, the Canada Revenue Agency reduced the PUC of the amalgamated company by $67,000,000 and imposed withholding tax of some $8,000,000 on the resulting deemed dividend to a non-resident shareholder.   In agreeing with the lower courts that there was a “tax benefit”, the Supreme Court of Canada analysed what would have been done if there had been no tax advantage in making B and C sister corporations instead of amalgamating them while they were parent and subsidiary. The “tax benefit” from making them sister corporations was to add some $67,000,000 to the PUC that otherwise would have disappeared.   The Court affirmed that, if any transaction that is part of a series of transactions “is not undertaken primarily for a bona fide non-tax purpose that transaction will be an avoidance transaction”. The redemption was such a transaction, and the remaining question was whether it was part of the same series as the earlier transactions that had made B and C sister corporations. The provisions of the Act deeming “related transactions or events completed in contemplating of” a series of transactions to be part of the series were applied, on the basis that “contemplation” can occur after, as well as before, the “related transactions or events”. Here the redemptions occurred with full knowledge of the earlier restructuring, making all these transactions part of the same series, so that there was a “avoidance transaction”.   Unfortunately this approach to determining when there is a series leaves the matter very indefinite. It might be argued that, whenever a transaction occurs that takes into account a previous transaction, no matter how remote in time, the necessary “contemplation” would be present, making the earlier and later transactions part of the same series. The Court tried to back away from this result by suggesting that the elapse of time may be relevant, but how or why is not made clear. It is regrettable that this uncertainty remains.   A large part of the decision concentrated on whether there was an “abuse”, which the Supreme Court of Canada in its 2005 decision in Canada Trust Co. had held must be proved by the Crown. The Court noted that “because of the potential to affect so many transactions, the court must approach a GAAR decision cautiously.” Nevertheless it concluded that there was abuse here, in that the $67,000,000 PUC of C, which had arisen because of an investment by B of part of the amount that had gone into B’s PUC, had been duplicated, contrary to the clear policy in the Act, as illustrated in the rules that eliminate the PUC of a subsidiary corporation when it amalgamates with its parent.   The Court noted that “whether a transaction is abusive will only become apparent when it is considered in the context of the series of which it is a part and the overall result that is achieved”. Here, consequently, the Court is looking at the series as a whole and not, as when it is looking for an “avoidance transaction”, at the individual components of the series. It concluded “that the intent is that PUC be limited such that it is not inappropriately increased merely through the device of an amalgamation”; the “object, spirit and purpose” of the amalgamation provisions of the Act were “to preclude the preservation of PUC, upon amalgamation, where such preservation will allow a shareholder, on a redemption of shares by the amalgamated corporation, to be paid amounts without liability for tax in excess of the investment of tax-paid funds”.   In the end, the result of the decision is not surprising, but its analysis will require careful attention. As indicated earlier, it does leave interpretation problems regarding the meaning of “series of transactions”, and the uncertainties of when a series is to be regarded as “abusive” inevitably remain.   For more information regarding this Tax Brief, please contact Edwin Harris, QC, FCA.   McInnes Cooper’s newsletters are prepared for information only and are not intended to be either a complete description of any issue or the opinion of our firm. McInnes Cooper should be consulted regarding any situation to which any topic discussed herein might apply.

Share

Print
View Related Content

Related Lawyers

  • Edwin Harris

    Private: Edwin Harris

    Counsel

Related Services

  • Tax

Related Publications

View All Publications
  • Underused Housing Tax Act: Residential Property Owner Reporting Obligations

    Jan 19, 2023

    We updated this publication on February 13, 2023. By April 30, 2023, both Canadian and non-Canadian trustees, partners of a partnership,…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Confirms No Retroactive Tax Planning Allowed

    Jul 12, 2022

    Lawyers and accountants advise clients on options for organizing their personal and business affairs in a tax-efficient way. Clients enter into…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Limited Options: New Employee Stock Option Tax Rules Effective July 1, 2021

    Jun 24, 2021

    Many employers use equity compensation plans like employee stock option plans to attract, motivate, and retain talent. One reason stock options…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Tax Implications of Working from Home During COVID-19: 10 Employer FAQs

    Mar 31, 2021

    Close to five million Canadians who didn’t usually work from home, did so in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even as public health…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Estate Planning: Two Trust Solutions

    Feb 12, 2021

    Estate planning is a customized process; the goal is to create a plan that’s best for a person’s unique situation. And while all estate…

    Read More
    Publication
  • New Trust Reporting Requirements Effective for 2021 Tax Year

    Dec 7, 2020

    All trusts that continue to be in effect past December 31, 2020, will be subject to new reporting requirements and harsh non-compliance…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Still an Option: Feds Delay New Tax Rules for Employee Stock Options

    Jan 30, 2020

    NOTE: The new tax rules for employee stock option plans take effect on July 1, 2021. Learn more at Limited Options: New Employee Stock Option…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Auditor Negligent & Liable for $40M in Livent v. Deloitte

    Dec 23, 2017

    Parents often threaten their children that if their behaviour did not improve they will get a lump of coal in their Christmas stockings. On…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Canada’s Private Corporation Tax Proposals: Year End Planning in the Face of Uncertainty

    Nov 20, 2017

    October 2, 2017 marked the end of the consultation period relating to the taxation of private corporation proposals the Department of Finance…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Federal Crown’s Deemed Trust Priority for Unremitted GST/HST Survives Bankruptcy

    Aug 28, 2017

    Recently, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that a tax debtor’s bankruptcy does not extinguish the federal Crown’s priority to proceeds…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Proposed Changes to Business Income Tax Rules: A Gamechanger for Private Business Owners

    Aug 4, 2017

    On July 18, 2017, Canada’s Minister of Finance released proposed changes to the Income Tax Act (Canada) that, if implemented, will mark one of…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Canadians With U.S. Connections: Key Cross-Border Estate Planning Strategies

    Jan 20, 2017

    Connections between Canadians and the U.S. have never been as numerous or transparent as they are now: many Canadians own U.S. property, have…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Don’t Sell Yet: How Principal Residence Exemption (PRE) Changes Affect Trusts

    Dec 22, 2016

    Effective January 1, 2017, the kinds of trusts that can claim the Principal Residence Exemption (PRE) will be limited. Now, the PRE allows…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Speaks on the Rectification of Transactions

    Dec 14, 2016

    On December 9, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified when a court can rectify a transaction that has had unintended tax consequences for…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Decides Indian Bands Assessing Leased Reserve Lands for Property Tax Purposes Can’t Have it Both Ways in Musqueam Indian Band v. Musqueam Indian Band (Board of Review)

    Sep 12, 2016

    On September 9, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Musqueam Indian Band v. Musqueam Indian Band (Board of Review) that an Indian band…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Decides Income Tax Act Sections are Unconstitutional – and Strengthens Solicitor-Client Privilege in Canada (Attorney General) v. Chambre des notaires du Québec & Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson

    Jun 6, 2016

    On June 3, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada, in two related decisions, strengthened the legal protection of solicitor-client privilege in…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Small Business Deduction: Key Proposed Changes & Strategic Solutions

    Apr 12, 2016

    Federal Budget 2016 proposed to significantly reduce the benefit of and access to the Small Business Deduction. The Small Business Deduction…

    Read More
    Publication
  • It Gets Worse: 5 Key Proposed Changes to Section 55 of the Income Tax Act

    Oct 23, 2015

    Subsection 55(2) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) is an anti-avoidance provision intended to prevent capital gains stripping by deeming an…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Tax Implications of Personal Services Businesses (PSB) Status & Strategies to Avoid It

    Oct 23, 2015

    Incorporation offers legal advantages to sole proprietors of small businesses, including certain tax advantages. However, when a corporation…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Canadian Treaty Shopping Proposal Shelved Pending Final OECD Recommendation, First To Be Released September 16

    Sep 11, 2014

    The Canadian federal government has been concerned for some time about “treaty shopping” by non-residents – the practice of non-residents…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Estate Planning Solutions: 5 FAQs About Alter Ego & Joint Partner Trusts

    May 22, 2014

    This publication has been updated as at February 17, 2021. Trusts offer a very useful estate planning solution for a wide variety of special…

    Read More
    Publication
  • DFO Announces that Corporations May Own Fishing Licenses

    Mar 7, 2011

    Effective April 1, 2011, the fishing licensing policy for the Atlantic Canada and Quebec inshore fishery will change to allow inshore fishing…

    Read More
    Publication

Stay Updated

Subscribe to McInnes Cooper to stay current with our leading insights on legal updates, trends, news, events, and services.

Connect With Us:
  • Follow us on Twitter @mcinnescooper
  • Like us on Facebook @mcinnescooperlaw
  • Join us on LinkedIn @mcinnes-cooper
  • 1.866.439.6246
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright © 2023 — McInnes Cooper
Lex Mundi Logo MC Advisory Logo