December 16, 2011
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.
Sep 29, 2023
On September 21, 2023, Bill C-56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, passed first reading. If passed, the Act will give developers of…
Sep 20, 2023
Can a business providing both exempt supplies and taxable supplies of goods and services claim Input Tax Credits (ITCs) under the Excise Tax Act…
Apr 25, 2023
Most initially believed the Underused Housing Tax Act would impose reporting and tax obligations only on non-Canadian and non-permanent…
Jan 19, 2023
We updated this publication on November 1, 2023. Beginning December 31, 2022, both Canadian and non-Canadian trustees, partners of a…
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…
Jun 24, 2021
Many employers use equity compensation plans like employee stock option plans to attract, motivate, and retain talent. One reason stock options…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
Apr 12, 2016
Federal Budget 2016 proposed to significantly reduce the benefit of and access to the Small Business Deduction. The Small Business Deduction…
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…
Oct 23, 2015
Incorporation offers legal advantages to sole proprietors of small businesses, including certain tax advantages. However, when a corporation…
Sep 11, 2014
The Canadian federal government has been concerned for some time about “treaty shopping” by non-residents – the practice of non-residents…
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…
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…
Subscribe to McInnes Cooper to stay current with our leading insights on legal updates, trends, news, events, and services.