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

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

Published:

October 23, 2015

Author(s):

  • Daren Baxter, KC, TEP
  • Sarah Campbell

Share

Print

Subsection 55(2) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) is an anti-avoidance provision intended to prevent capital gains stripping by deeming an inter-corporate dividend to be proceeds of disposition or a capital gain if one of the purposes (or, if subsection 84(3) applies, one of the results) of the dividend is to effect a significant reduction of a capital gain attributable to anything other than safe income on hand. There are exceptions to the application of subsection 55(2), such as those relating to Part IV tax and paragraphs 55(3)(a) and 55(3)(b).

Budget 2015 announced amendments to section 55, referring specifically to the Tax Court of Canada’s decision in D & D Livestock Ltd., 2013 TCC 318. The case involved a complex series of transactions that resulted in the double-counting of a subsidiary’s safe income. The Court held that subsection 55(2) was not applicable because the safe income attributable to shares of a subsidiary is not reduced by a dividend paid on the shares of its parent company. The Crown did not rely on GAAR, but the CRA says it will apply GAAR to such planning in the future.

On July 31, 2015, the Department of Finance released updated draft amendments for consultation. The consultation period ended on September 30, 2015.  The proposed amendments, once enacted, will be effective as of April 21, 2015. Here are the five key changes proposed to section 55 and advice to help deal with the consequences of the changes.

5 Key Changes To Section 55. The proposed amendments entail these five key changes to section 55:

  1. Paragraph 55(3)(a) Related Person Test Restricted. One of the main changes is to limit the application of the paragraph 55(3)(a) related party exception to deemed dividends under subsections 84(2) (winding-up) and 84(3) (redemption). An ordinary dividend will no longer have the benefit of the bright line exception in paragraph 55(3)(a).
  1. Different Safe Income Exception. Currently, a dividend is protected if the capital gain on a share that is reduced by the dividend is reasonably attributable to safe income. The safe income does not have to be allocated to the share on which the dividend is paid. For example, a dividend on discretionary dividend shares which reduces a gain on common shares is permitted, if the gain is attributable to safe income allocated to the common shares.  However, under the proposed changes, a dividend will only be protected by safe income if the safe income contributes to a capital gain on the share on which the dividend is paid.  As a result, dividends paid on discretionary dividend shares will not have any safe income protection, since they have no safe income allocation or inherent gain.
  1. New Purpose Test for Ordinary Dividends. Currently, subsection 55(2) applies if one of the purposes of a dividend is to effect a significant reduction in a capital gain not attributable to safe income. The proposed rules extend the application of subsection 55(2) so it will also apply if one of the purposes is to effect a significant reduction in the fair market value of any share or a significant increase in the cost of any property. Finance is concerned about dividends that create or increase losses. Subsection 55(2) is presently understood to not apply to dividends that create or increase a loss on a share. Where the value of a share is already nil, a new provision will ensure a dividend can still reduce its value, as the value of a share will be deemed to be increased immediately before the dividend is paid by the amount by which the amount of the dividend exceeds the fair market value of the share.
  1. Inter-Corporate High-Low Stock Dividends. Currently, the “amount” of a stock dividend is the amount of the increase of the paid-up capital of the corporation’s shares. The amount of a dividend paid by the issuance of shares with a high redemption price but low paid-up capital would be the amount of the low paid-up capital. However, this will change for the purposes of section 55: the amount of the inter-corporate stock dividend will now be the greater of the paid-up capital increase and the fair market value of the stock dividend shares. These new rules address capital loss plans whereby value was shifted from one class of shares to another to create an unrealized loss on the first class of shares.
  1. Changes to Part IV Tax Exception. Currently, the rules refer to tax under Part IV that is not refunded as a consequence of the payment of a dividend to a corporation. However, the new provision refers to the payment of a dividend by a corporation. As a result, the Part IV tax exception will not be available when the Part IV tax is refunded as part of the same series, even if the refund arises by paying a dividend to an individual. The policy reason for this extension of the existing rules is not clear.

Consequences of Section 55 Changes for Ordinary Dividends. Ordinary dividends will no longer have the benefit of the related party exception but must qualify for the safe income exception or “fail” the purpose test. This makes discretionary dividend shares now dangerous to use because the only protection is the purpose test. To address this increased risk:

  • Corporate Beneficiary Structure. If a corporate beneficiary structure doesn’t exist, a taxpayer should consider implementing it now. Otherwise, the continued use of discretionary dividend shares is possible if the taxpayer is comfortable the purpose test is satisfied. In that context, it will be good practice to record the purpose of the dividend.
  • Transfer & Redeem. Another approach is to transfer some shares to an investment holding company and redeem them in order to get access to the related party test. Taxpayers and their advisors must consider which is better: the related party test or the purpose test? The related party test seems more certain but also involves a higher risk of being more obviously wrong; the purpose test always leaves some scope for argument. When relying on paragraph 55(3)(a) related party test, it’s important to carefully analyze all the shareholders to ensure there are no unrelated parties. Any possible future steps involving an unrelated party must be identified to determine if those steps may form part of the same series of transactions.

The Purpose Test. The leading case on the purpose test is The Queen v. Placer Dome 1996 DTC 6562 (FCA). The key aspects of the test are:

  • it is a subjective test;
  • the taxpayer has the onus of proof;
  • mere denial by taxpayer is not sufficient, although additional or corroborative evidence is not required; and
  • if the transaction significantly reduces a gain, the Minister can infer the purpose and the taxpayer must rebut that presumption.

The test is met if only one of the purposes of the dividend is an enumerated improper purpose.  Although every dividend reduces the fair market value of a share, section 55 is an anti-avoidance provision that the CRA (and courts) will not, hopefully, apply too widely.

Family Trusts. If the regular distribution of earnings will be structured as redemptions more often, then reliance on paragraph 55(3)(a) must be carefully considered. Paragraph 55(5)(e) provides that a person is only related to a trust if the person is a corporation controlled by the trust or a person related to each beneficiary of the trust. It will be even more important under the new rules to consider and ensure, when the trust is established, that trust beneficiaries are related (or related to the person who controls the corporation, as applicable) for purposes of section 55.

Advice. The proposed changes to section 55 mean transactions involving inter-corporate dividends will be even more complex. As a result, practitioners must:

  • carefully consider upon which exceptions to rely;
  • consider all purposes of a dividend and how to establish that none are bad;
  • analyze all parties to ensure application of the related party test, including careful scrutiny of trust beneficiaries; and
  • be prepared to conduct complex safe income calculations.

Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of our McInnes Cooper Tax Solutions Team to discuss this topic or any other legal issue.


McInnes Cooper has prepared this document for information only; it is not intended to be legal advice.  You should consult McInnes Cooper about your unique circumstances before acting on this information. McInnes Cooper excludes all liability for anything contained in this document and any use you make of it.

© McInnes Cooper, 2016.  All rights reserved.  McInnes Cooper owns the copyright in this document. You may reproduce and distribute this document in its entirety as long as you do not alter the form or the content and you give McInnes Cooper credit for it. You must obtain McInnes Cooper’s consent for any other form of reproduction or distribution. Email us at [email protected] to request our consent.

Share

Print
View Related Content

Related Lawyers

  • Daren Baxter, QC, TEP

    Daren Baxter, KC, TEP

    Partner

  • Sarah Campbell

    Sarah Campbell

    Chair of Promotion of Women Committee, Partner

Related Services

  • Tax

Related Publications

View All Publications
  • Underused Housing Tax Act: Non-Resident Non-Canadian Reporting Obligations

    Jan 19, 2023

    By April 30, 2023, some non-resident non-Canadians are required to report and pay taxes owed under the Canada’s new Underused Housing Tax Act,…

    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
  • 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
  • Comment on Copthorne Holdings Limited V. The Queen

    Dec 16, 2011

    In a unanimous decision rendered by Justice Rothstein, the Supreme Court of Canada today dismissed the appeal of Copthorne Holdings Limited,…

    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