Canada: The Supreme Court Of Canada Speaks On GAAR

Last Updated: January 31 2012
Article by Timothy S. Wach

On December 16th last the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") released its long anticipated decision in the case of Copthorne Holdings Ltd. v. The Queen ("Copthorne").  The reason that this decision was long anticipated is that it represents only the third time that the SCC has addressed the application of the so-called "general anti-avoidance rule" or "GAAR", found in section 245 of the Canadian Income Tax Act ("ITA"), since the GAAR was introduced into the ITA in 1988.

The Copthorne case revolved around the characterization of a distribution by the taxpayer to its non-resident parent corporation.  Briefly, the taxpayer contended that the distribution consisted of a non-taxable return of "paid-up capital" ("PUC", being, in general terms, the amount received by a corporation on the issuance of its shares).  The Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") took the position that the PUC in question had been created or preserved in a manner that constituted a misuse or abuse of the provisions of the ITA and that, therefore, the GAAR should apply to re-characterize the distribution as a taxable dividend, not as a non-taxable return of PUC.  In short, the SCC agreed with the CRA.

The Facts

The facts of the case are extraordinarily complex, even for a tax planning case.  In very general terms, the case involved two sets of transactions.  One aspect of the decision of the SCC, an aspect of some considerable importance, is the determination of whether the two sets of transactions were part of one series of transactions.  This was a threshold issue because, in the circumstances, the GAAR could only apply if this were the case.

The first set of transactions involved a loss consolidation.  Canadian tax law does not provide for consolidated reporting within a corporate group, nor does it explicitly provide for loss transfers within such a group.  However, certain loss consolidation transactions are tolerated by the CRA and, therefore, are not unusual when one corporation within a group has income or a gain and another has unused tax losses.  In this case, the loss consolidation transactions involved a transfer of the shares of one group member, "VHHC Holdings", held by its parent corporation, "VHHC Investments", to another group member which was a predecessor to the taxpayer.  The loss consolidation transaction was not impugned by the CRA. 

At the end of the loss consolidation transaction, the predecessor of the taxpayer was left holding shares of "VHHC Holdings" the PUC of which was high but the fair market value of which was nominal.  This is important because the PUC of those shares had, as its source, the same funds that had been invested into VHHC Investments, which shares (with their high PUC and nominal value) were still held within the group (in other words, the funds had made their way down the chain of corporations, creating PUC at each level).

A decision was taken to merge several group corporations, including the predecessor of the taxpayer and its then wholly owned subsidiary, VHHC Holdings.  A vertical amalgamation of VHHC Holdings with its then parent, the predecessor of the taxpayer, would have caused the high PUC of the shares of the capital of VHHC Holdings to disappear.  Accordingly, the shares of the capital of VHHC Holdings were first sold to the parent of the predecessor to the taxpayer, "Big City", and the predecessor to the taxpayer and VHHC Holdings were merged by way of a horizontal amalgamation, thereby preserving the PUC of the shares of the capital of VHHC Holdings.  The decision to effect this merger by way of the horizontal amalgamation, rather than a vertical amalgamation, was a key factor in the SCC decision.

The second set of transactions, effected approximately two years later, involved the transfer of the shares of the capital of both the processor of the taxpayer and of VHHC Investments to another group member resident in Barbados, following which the two Canadian corporations, and two other Canadian corporations in the group, were amalgamated to form the taxpayer.  This was then followed by a redemption of shares of the capital of the taxpayer held by its Barbadian parent corporation. 

The taxpayer took the position that the redemption did not trigger a deemed dividend for its non-resident parent because the PUC of the shares redeemed exceeded the amount paid to the parent on the redemption.  The CRA, in essence, contended that the PUC of the shares should not include the PUC derived from the shares of the capital of VHHC Holdings with the result that the share redemption by the taxpayer gave rise to a deemed dividend paid to its parent on which the taxpayer should have withheld Canadian tax.

Series

The first question addressed by the SCC was whether the first set of transactions and the second set were part of one series of transactions.  The Court held that they were, based upon the extended definition of a "series" found in subsection 248(10) of the ITA which includes in a series any "related transaction" completed "in contemplation of" the series.  This aspect of the decision is interesting in itself, but is not the focus of this commentary.

GAAR

The SCC also agreed with the CRA that the GAAR should apply to redetermine the PUC of the shares redeemed by the taxpayer.  In particular, the SCC agreed that the PUC of the redeemed shares should not include the PUC derived from the shares of the capital of VHHC Holdings.  At the risk of oversimplifying the well considered and reasoned decision of the Court, the following are some observations on the reasons of the Court:

  • "taxpayers are entitled to select courses of action or enter into transactions that will minimize their tax liability (see Duke of Westminster)";
  • "The GAAR is a legal mechanism whereby Parliament has conferred on the court the unusual duty of going behind the words of the legislation to determine the object, spirit or purpose of the provision or provisions relied upon by the taxpayer.  While the taxpayer's transactions will be in strict compliance with the text of the relevant provisions relied upon, they may not necessarily be in accord with their object, spirit or purpose.  In such cases, the GAAR may be invoked by the Minister.  The GAAR does create some uncertainty for taxpayers.  Courts, however, must remember that s. 245 was enacted 'as a provision of last resort' ";
  • Because of the potential to affect so many transactions, the court must approach a GAAR decision cautiously.  It is necessary to remember that "Parliament must...'be taken to seek consistency, predictability and fairness in tax law'...For this reason, 'the GAAR can only be applied to deny a tax benefit when the abusive nature of the transaction is clear' " (emphasis added).

In using the emphasized words in the last bullet above, the SCC was quoting itself from the Canada Trustco decision.  However, the words are reminiscent of the Federal Court of Appeal ("FCA") decision in OSFC Holdings, in which that court stated:

to deny a tax benefit where there has been strict compliance with the Act, on the grounds that the avoidance transaction constitutes a misuse or abuse, requires that the relevant policy be clear and unambiguous. The Court will proceed cautiously in carrying out the unusual duty imposed upon it under subsection 245(4). The Court must be confident that although the words used by Parliament allow the avoidance transaction, the policy of relevant provisions or the Act as a whole is sufficiently clear that the Court may safely conclude that the use made of the provision or provisions by the taxpayer constituted a misuse or abuse.

In answer to the argument that such an approach will make the GAAR difficult to apply, I would say that where the policy is clear, it will not be difficult to apply. Where the policy is ambiguous, it should be difficult to apply (emphasis added).

It is interesting to note that both the SCC decision in Copthorne and the FCA decision in OSFC Holdings were written by Justice Marshall Rothstein.  These two decisions are, arguably, the best written and best reasoned GAAR decisions to date.  They also provide clear guidance on when the GAAR should be applied, which is not very often, and only when "the abusive nature of the transaction is clear" or when the relevant policy is "clear and unambiguous".

OFSC Holdings involved a series of transactions intended to circumvent the loss streaming rules applicable upon a corporate acquisition of control.  In that case the FCA did not have too much difficulty finding a general scheme of the ITA against corporate loss trading, a conclusion that is hard to question.

It is perhaps more difficult to find a general scheme of the ITA in respect of PUC and corporate distributions than it is in respect of corporate loss trading (although some would argue that such a scheme is present, and that one only needs to look harder to find it, although perhaps this means that it is not "clear and unambiguous").  In its decision, the SCC relied heavily on the fact that had the merger of the predecessor of the taxpayer and its wholly owned subsidiary, VHHC Holdings, been effected as a vertical amalgamation the PUC in issue would not have survived the merger because subsection 87(3) of the ITA would have eliminated it.  The Court held that by effecting the merger as a horizontal amalgamation, rather than a vertical amalgamation (which would have been a simpler way of achieving the same non-tax, commercial result), constituted an abuse of subsection 87(3) of the ITA.  This conclusion was heavily influenced by the fact that the PUC had, as its source, the same original funds, as described above.

Conclusion

It is probably safe to say that the CRA won in Copthorne because it had really good facts.  These facts presented to the Court a fairly clear case of duplication of PUC through the investment of funds down a corporate chain, and also allowed the Court to draw a fairly clear comparison between the elimination of that PUC on a simple transaction (the vertical amalgamation which could have been effected) versus the preservation of it on a more complicated transaction (the horizontal amalgamation that was effected) and the avoidance of subsection 87(3) as a result.

However, the importance of Copthorne is not in what it tells us about PUC planning transactions, but what it tells us about the GAAR.  As noted above, it is interesting to note the similarities between the reasons in Copthorne and OSFC Holdings.  Hopefully those decisions, particularly the portions referred to above, will guide the courts (and the CRA?) in their future considerations of the application of the GAAR.  In particular, in addressing the misuse or abuse question necessary for determining if the GAAR is applicable to a particular transaction,  hopefully the Copthorne criterion ("the GAAR can only be applied to deny a tax benefit when the abusive nature of the transaction is clear"), and the similar OSFC Holdings criterion (the GAAR should be applied, which is not very often, and only when "the abusive nature of the transaction is clear" or when the relevant policy is "clear and unambiguous") will be our guides.

No doubt many tax professionals in Canada will continue to decry the "uncertainty" and "arbitrary nature" of the GAAR, as they have for over 20 years.  On the other hand, it is interesting to note that officials of the CRA and the Department of Finance can often be heard expressing concern that the courts have applied the GAAR in too restrictive a manner.  If the courts are hearing complaints from both ends of the spectrum, perhaps they have hit the "Goldilocks zone".

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions