Canada: GE Capital Canada: FCA Dismisses Crown’s Transfer Pricing Appeal on Guarantee Fees


On November 16, 2010, the Federal Court of Canada ("FCA") heard the Crown's appeal from a decision by Hogan J. of the Tax Court of Canada ("TCC"). At the trial level, the TCC found in favor of General Electric Capital Canada Inc. ("GEC") regarding the payment of guarantee fees to its parent, General Electric Capital Corporation ("GEUS"), for guaranteeing GEC's debt to third parties. GEC paid guarantee fees of over $135 million during the 1996 through 2000 taxation years. The TCC ruling was one of Canada's most significant cases to date regarding guarantee fees, as well as transfer pricing, and the arm's length principle. On December 15, 2010 the FCA delivered its judgment, and dismissed the Crown's appeal with costs.

At issue in this case was the arm's length nature of the payment by GEC to its parent. The Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") audited GEC's guarantee fee, and determined that an arm's length person would not have paid for the guarantee as it provided no benefit to GEC. GEC disagreed, asserting that the guarantee reduced its borrowing costs.

In the initial ruling, the Tax Court Judge determined the guarantee fees paid by GEC did not exceed the amount which a person dealing at arm's length would have paid in like circumstances, thus he vacated the assessments. On appeal, the Crown contended that the TCC Judge committed numerous legal and factual errors.

The Crown's two central arguments to allow the appeal were premised on 1) that an arm's length party would not have paid the guarantee fee because no value was provided, and 2) that the behaviour of the Tax Court Judge at trial gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

After considering these central arguments, the FCA Judge dismissed the Crown's appeal, determining that the TCC ruling was justified and appropriate.


This case involved an American parent company, GEUS, and its wholly-owned, indirect Canadian subsidiary, GEC. GEC and GEUS did not deal with each other at arm's length during the years under appeal. During this time, GEC was a financial services company operating in Canada. GEC's operations essentially consisted of borrowing funds from the capital markets at low cost, and then turning these funds into profits by lending or leasing to other parties. In order to implement this business model, substantial amounts of capital were obtained by GEC by issuing debt in the form of commercial paper and unsecured debentures. The exclusive purchasers of GEC's debt securities were third parties unrelated to GEC or GEUS.

GEUS guaranteed GEC's debt prior to 1995, however, GEUS only started charging GEC for the guarantees in 1995. Written agreements were entered into by GEC and GEUS concerning the guarantee fee (the "Guarantee"). GEUS agreed to guarantee GEC's debt securities in return for the payment of a fee equal to 1%, or 100 basis points, per annum of the principal amount of the debt securities outstanding from time to time during a year. The fee was deducted by GEC for the 1996 to 2000 taxation years.

The CRA reassessed GEC because it believed that GEC had obtained no economic benefit from the Guarantee. The CRA was of the opinion that the arm's length price of the Guarantee should be zero. The TCC was tasked with determining the arm's length price for the Guarantee.

Credit Ratings

Standard & Poor's and Moody's Investors Service, two credit rating agencies based in the United States, assigned an issuer rating of AAA to GEUS, the highest issuer rating assigned by them. GEC also received the highest credit quality ratings by two Canadian based credit agencies. The consensus between GEC's representatives and experts is that the AAA investment rating for GEC's debts would not have been possible without the Guarantee.

At trial several experts explained their findings based on different methodologies. The TCC concluded that the yield curve approach provided the best method to determine the Guarantee fee. This approach is a reflection of the expenses incurred when borrowing money given different maturities and credit ratings. It compares the interest rates that GEC could obtain when borrowing money with the Guarantee versus without the Guarantee.

GEC's Experts

According to GEC, the yield approach determined that the spread was between 100 and 300 basis points, or 1 to 3%. In general, experts for GEC analyzed the spread between AAA- rated bonds and bonds that are an average of single B and BB. One expert concluded that the overall spread was about 352 basis points between a AAA rating and the B+ to BB- rating for GEC in the absence of an explicit guarantee. Therefore, the value of the Guarantee was determined to be approximately 1.83% based on a BB+ to BBB- credit rating range.

GEC's experts assigned a B+ to BBB- credit rating to GEC as a stand-alone entity for various reasons. GEC was a profitable entity growing rapidly in a very stable marketplace. However, GEC was thinly capitalized and had a high degree of leverage. GEC's profitability was also decreasing during the period in question. Despite GEC's reduced leverage and rapid growth, it was unable to generate profits or increase profits on a continuous basis. Further, GEC was part of an intensely competitive environment. Experts claimed that, in general, when a weak entity is owned by a strong parent, the entity will often receive a stronger rating than it would on a stand-alone basis. Some experts were of the opinion that GEC was only able to borrow the amount of funds it did in the Canadian commercial paper market because of the Guarantee from GEUS.

CRA's Experts

One of CRA's experts used a quantitative approach to measure the creditworthiness of GEC. This approach is generally based on financial market data, such as stock prices, bond prices and CDS spread. He determined that GEC was a core subsidiary of GEUS and should thus receive an AAA rating. At the very least, GEC could have been rated AA if classified as having been strategically important to GEUS at the relevant time, rather than of core importance. As a result, in the opinion of the CRA's expert, the fee would have been between 15 and 24 basis points. He therefore classified the 1% fee as a very high-risk adjusted return on capital.

FCA Decision & Analysis

The arguments raised by the Crown in support of its appeal allege that the Tax Court Judge committed four errors of law. The Crown also requested that the FCA allow the appeal on the basis that an arm's length party would not have paid the Guarantee fees. The four errors of law alleged by the Crown are as follows:

  1. The Tax Court Judge erred by removing the explicit guarantee for purposes of identifying the relevant transaction.
  2. The Tax Court Judge erred in law by failing to consider four relevant characteristics in assessing the value of the explicit guarantee.
  3. The Tax Court Judge erred by not applying the "reasonableness" check.
  4. The Tax Court Judge erred by upholding the necessity of the explicit guarantee based on the business judgment of a witness.

In addition, the Crown also alleged that the behaviour of the TCC Judge gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The FCA Judge began his analysis by addressing the issue of implicit support. In its decision, the Tax Court Judge reduced the arm's length price for the Guarantee on account of implicit support. GEC argued that, since transfer pricing principles require that a transaction be examined in a fictitious arm's length context, implicit support cannot be considered because the concept is rooted in the familial relationship between affiliated companies and is thus a by-product of the non arm's length relationship. The Crown relied on the concept of implicit support for its proposition that the explicit guarantee was of no value to GEC.

In the recent FCA decision in Glaxosmithkline Inc. v. Canada, 2010 FCA 201 [Glaxo], Glaxo successfully argued that all relevant circumstances must be taken into account, the relevant circumstances being those which an arm's length purchaser, standing in the shoes of Glaxo, would consider relevant in deciding whether it should pay the price paid by Glaxo for the goods. In light of the Glaxo decision, the FCA Judge in the GE case held at paragraph 59 that in "[a]pplying this test, there is no doubt that the existence of the implicit guarantee is relevant to the inquiry and must be considered in identifying the arm's length price." The FCA Judge further stated that in the context of the yield method, implicit support is a factor which an arm's length person would find relevant in pricing the guarantee.

The FCA Judge then analyzed each of the Crown's four error of law assertions, and the reasonable apprehension of bias argument. With respect to the first error of law argument, that being that the TCC Judge erred by removing the explicit guarantee, the FCA Judge concluded that this error had no impact on the Tax Court Judge's finding that a gap existed between the credit rating which the respondent would have obtained with and without the explicit agreement. Moreover, the 1% guarantee fee was within this gap.

The second argument put forth by the Crown was that the TCC Judge failed to consider four relevant characteristics in assessing the value of the explicit guarantee. The FCA Judge determined that the TCC Judge had in fact highlighted the importance of at least three of the four factors and that the Crown's real complaint was that the TCC Judge should have preferred evidence of one witness over that of another. Having come to this conclusion, the FCA Judge determined that this goes to the weighting of evidence, and that the evidence justifies the decision made by the TCC Judge.

With respect to the third error of law argument, that being that the TCC Judge erred by not applying the "reasonableness" check, the FCA Judge agreed with the TCC Judge in that a "reasonableness" check was not required. To this end, the FCA Judge concluded the "reasonableness" test proposed by the Crown, which would have demonstrated that a 2% guarantee fee would be unreasonable, was not relevant because the fee actually charged and claimed as a deduction was only 1%.

The fourth error of law argument was that the TCC Judge relied on the subjective business judgment of a witness that claimed the explicit guarantee was necessary. The core of the Crown's argument was that the necessity of the explicit guarantee had to be assessed with reference to objective rather than subjective evidence. The FCA Judge determined that the TCC Judge had considered the witness' business judgment only after having found, based on objective evidence, that the explicit guarantee was necessary.

The reasonable apprehension of bias argument rests upon the Crown's allegation that the TCC Judge developed his own theory of the case. The FCA Judge concluded there was no established reasonable apprehension of bias by the TCC Judge.

Having tackled each error of law argument, and further determining that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, the FCA Judge dismissed the Crown's appeal with costs.

Secondary Issues Involving Guarantee Fees

In light of the FCA decision, and the public attention it and its predecessor (TCC) decision received, it will be safe to assume that tax advisors, when developing their transfer pricing strategies for their clients, will be more inclined to pursue the possibility of arm's length guarantee fees where the facts and circumstances support it. Such strategies may, of course, ultimately depend on whether there is a desire to report profits in the guarantor's state of residence. Regardless, as there now could be a surge of activity on this front, one should also be aware of certain recent secondary issues pertaining to guarantee fees.

Paragraph 4 of Article XXII of the Canada-United States Tax Convention (1980) ("Treaty") was recently added, as a consequence of the Fifth Protocol, to ensure that compensation derived by a resident of a Contracting State in respect of the provisions of a guarantee of indebtedness shall be taxable only in that State. The only exception for this rule will be where the compensation is considered business profits attributable to a permanent establishment situated in the other contracting state. The Technical Explanation to paragraph 4 of article XXII also clarifies that guarantee fees with respect to the debt of related parties is ordinarily not an independent economic undertaking that would generate business profits. In brief, new Article XXII(4) will apply to ensure that there is no withholding taxes in the source state on most guarantee payments.

Prior to the Fifth Protocol, both Canada and the U.S. had different approaches to the taxation of guarantee fees. For example, in many situations paragraph 214(15)(b) of the Income Tax Act ("Act") would apply on southbound guarantee fees to deem the payment of a guarantee fee by a Canadian resident to a U.S. resident to be "interest" for purposes of Part XIII of the Act. The deemed interest would then be subject to the reduced withholding rates under Article XI of the Treaty. For northbound guarantee fees, the U.S. did not deem such payments to be "interest", but instead, imposed a 30-percent tax on "fixed or determinable annual or periodical" income received from sources within the U.S. by a foreign corporation, but only to the extent the amount so received was not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the U.S. Where the conditions for the 30% withholding tax were met1, depending on the circumstances, the U.S. viewed the northbound guarantee fees as being subject to Article XXII. The result was that the U.S. maintained full source state taxation rights. Now there is some degree of symmetry between the two countries' tax treatment of outbound guarantee fees, and taxpayers can be assured of no withholding tax implications.

Finally, in light of arbitration, which was also introduced in the Fifth Protocol, there is now complete protection for taxpayers against exposure to double taxation in the event the guarantee fee is subsequently challenged by the CRA or IRS. Between arbitration, and the fact that there is no longer withholding tax implications in the source state, this will further encourage tax advisors to give due consideration to transfer pricing strategies involving guarantee fees.


The FCA upheld the TCC's ruling by agreeing to uphold the arm's length principle and the concept of implicit support, and set the price of the transaction (the Guarantee) between GEC and GEUS at a price that two independent parties would have agreed to. By reaching this conclusion, the FCA has instilled and bolstered the fundamental principles of transfer pricing. At the very heart of transfer pricing is the notion that intercompany prices between related parties be set as if the parties were independent of one another. This principle is enshrined in the OECD guidelines on transfer pricing, which the CRA generally adheres to. The CRA adjustment that led GEC to court is troubling on a number of levels, especially given the fact that certain transfer pricing principles, namely the idea that prices be set to represent arm's length standards, were ignored by the CRA.

The CRA's position is unfortunately another example of where the Agency did not follow its own principles or past decisions, and decided to take a tough stance based on the pure quantum of the adjustment. The CRA must be more consistent in the manner in which they approach transfer pricing, particularly in respect to guarantee fees, considering it has accepted guarantee fees in the past on both an inbound and outbound basis. It is important to note that the size of the fee should not matter, as long as such fees meet the commercial and economic realities of the given transaction. In the final analysis, any fee negotiated should be based on sound economic theory, and principles that meet the economic reality of the transaction. The FCA's ruling confirms these sound transfer pricing principles.


1 The IRS recently lost a court decision on this issue where it was determined by the court that the guarantee fee paid by a U.S. resident was not a U.S. source - see Container Corp. v. Comm'r, 134 T.C. No. 5 (2010) (United States Tax Court).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
8 Nov 2016, Seminar, Ottawa, Canada

The prospect of an internal investigation raises many thorny issues. This presentation will canvass some of the potential triggering events, and discuss how to structure an investigation, retain forensic assistance and manage the inevitable ethical issues that will arise.

22 Nov 2016, Seminar, Ottawa, Canada

From the boardroom to the shop floor, effective organizations recognize the value of having a diverse workplace. This presentation will explore effective strategies to promote diversity, defeat bias and encourage a broader community outlook.

7 Dec 2016, Seminar, Ottawa, Canada

Staying local but going global presents its challenges. Gowling WLG lawyers offer an international roundtable on doing business in the U.K., France, Germany, China and Russia. This three-hour session will videoconference in lawyers from around the world to discuss business and intellectual property hurdles.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.