Canada: Taxpayer Wins "Beneficial Ownership" Case: Velcro Canada Inc. v. The Queen

The Tax Court of Canada recently allowed the taxpayer's appeal in Velcro Canada Inc. v. The Queen.  The issue on appeal was whether a Dutch company was the beneficial owner of royalties paid to it by a Canadian taxpayer for purposes of the Canada-Netherlands Income Tax Convention (the Treaty), despite the Dutch company having an obligation to pay a further royalty, in an amount equal to 90% of the royalties received from Canada, within 30 days to an affiliate in the Netherlands Antilles.  The court held that the Dutch company was not a mere conduit for the Netherlands Antilles company as had been alleged by the Crown.  This decision is important as it provides further clarification of the circumstances under which taxpayers may arrange for payments to be made to a company in a treaty jurisdiction without loss of treaty relief for Canadian sourced payments.  In particular, the decision extends the guidance regarding beneficial ownership provided by the Federal Court of Appeal in Prévost Car Inc. v. The Queen1 (see our Osler Update dated March 2, 2009) – a case which had considered clearly discretionary payments (dividends) – to contractually mandated payments such as interest or royalties.

Background Facts

In 1987, Velcro Industries BV (Velcro Industries) entered into a licence agreement with Velcro Canada Inc. (Velcro Canada), granting Velcro Canada the right to use Velcro Industries' intellectual property to manufacture and sell fastening products in exchange for royalty payments (the Licence Agreement).  At the time, Velcro Industries was a resident of the Netherlands. From 1987 to October 1995, Velcro Canada paid royalties to Velcro Industries and withheld Canadian tax at the applicable 10% rate under the Treaty, rather than the 25% rate that would apply absent any treaty relief.

The Velcro group of companies underwent a reorganization on October 26, 1995, resulting in Velcro Industries becoming a resident of the Netherlands Antilles, a country with which Canada did not have an income tax treaty.   The next day, Velcro Industries assigned its rights and obligations under the original Licence Agreement to Velcro Holdings BV (Holdings), a subsidiary resident in the Netherlands. Under an assignment agreement, Holdings was assigned the right to grant licenses for Velcro Industries' intellectual property to Velcro Canada and to receive royalties from Velcro Canada. Holdings would pay Velcro Industries an arm's length percentage of net sales of the licensed products, which represented approximately 90% of the royalty payments received from Velcro Canada, within 30 days of receiving royalty payments from Velcro Canada.  The ownership of the intellectual property remained with Velcro Industries.

Velcro Canada withheld tax from royalty payments to Holdings at a rate of 10% pursuant to the Treaty until December 1998, when the royalty rate was changed to zero. The CRA assessed Velcro Canada for failing to withhold and remit withholding tax of 25% of the royalties paid to Holdings, during the 1996 – 2004 taxation years. The taxpayer appealed.

The Crown argued that Velcro Industries, the Dutch Antilles resident, rather than Holdings, the Dutch resident, was the beneficial owner of the royalties from Velcro Canada between 1996 and 2004, thereby disentitling Holdings to the reduced royalty rate under the Treaty. The taxpayer's position was that Holdings was the beneficial owner of the royalties.

Decision of the Tax Court of Canada

Associate Chief Justice Rossiter turned to Chief Justice Rip's definition in Prévost of the "beneficial owner" of income as the person who receives the income for his or her own use and enjoyment and assumes the risk and control of the income he or she received.  Rossiter A.C.J. distilled four elements from Prévost to consider in determining where beneficial ownership lies: (a) possession; (b) use; (c) risk; and (d) control. He also repeated Rip C.J.'s comments in Prévost that a court is not likely to pierce the corporate veil unless the corporation has "absolutely no discretion" with regard to the use and application of the funds.

Rossiter A.C.J. concluded that the taxpayer demonstrated it was the beneficial owner of the royalties on each of the four elements. Although the reasons pointed to a number of factors, the court relied on the following main factors: Holdings (not Velcro Industries) had the legal right to receive the royalties from Velcro Canada; the funds paid as royalties by Velcro Canada were deposited in an account owned by Holdings over which it had exclusive possession and control; such funds were comingled with other monies in Holdings' accounts and not held in a separate account; Holdings converted the funds from Canadian to US dollars to pay Velcro Industries (exposing itself to currency fluctuation risk); the money earned interest belonging to Holdings; Holdings did not have to seek instructions in dealing with the funds; and the amount of the royalty payments received from Velcro Canada differed from the amount paid by Holdings to Velcro Industries. 

The fact that the royalty payments were comingled with other money in Holdings' accounts (derived for example from Holdings' lending activities) weighed heavily in the taxpayer's favour because, according to the court, this gave Holdings discretion in the use of the funds. In Rossiter A.C.J.'s opinion, this meant that the funds could be used by Holdings in any way it saw fit – whether to make loans, invest, or make payments on other legal obligations. The royalties were treated as assets listed on Holdings' financial statements, making them available to creditors, with no priority given to Velcro Industries as a creditor. Another corollary of comingling was that although Holdings was obligated to pay 90% of the royalties to Velcro Industries, the funds actually paid were not necessarily the same funds received, meaning there was no automatic flow of specific funds because of the discretion of Holdings with respect to the use of those funds. The other 10% was subject to the discretionary use, enjoyment and control of Holdings. 

Applying guidance found in the Commentary to the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (the Commentaries), Rossiter A.C.J. then considered whether Holdings acted as an agent, nominee or conduit in respect of the royalties from Velcro Canada.  He concluded that Holdings did not have the capacity to affect the legal position of Velcro Industries, and therefore was not its legal agent.  Holdings was not a nominee because it acted on its own account at all times subject to the assignment agreements. Lastly, in order to find that Holdings was a conduit of Velcro Industries, the court would have to find that Holdings had absolutely no discretion with respect to the funds, as set out by Prévost. Rossiter A.C.J. concluded that the limited discretion which Holdings did exercise in respect of the funds prevented the court from piercing the corporate veil.

Implications of the Decision

In Velcro Canada, Rossiter A.C.J. stated that in cases where the issue is whether a treaty resident company is a mere conduit, rather than the beneficial owner of Canadian source payments, "one must take a close look at where the right to use and the enjoyment and assumption of risk and control of the payments lie".  The decision itself is helpful in both distilling such elements of the beneficial ownership concept as possession, use, risk and control and providing a helpful road map as to how one takes a nuanced and "close look" at the legal and commercial facts relevant to the location of those elements.  The decision further clarifies the Canadian approach to cases involving the selective use of treaty resident entities to receive Canadian sourced payments of dividends, interest or royalties.   Specifically, the case clarifies that: 

  • Where a treaty resident is contractually obligated to make a further payment in connection with a prior Canadian sourced payment, such a contractual obligation is not necessarily tantamount to the type of "automatic flow of funds" that could result in the treaty resident entity not being the beneficial owner of the Canadian sourced payment;
  • An intermediary entity in a back-to-back arrangement does not need to have unfettered discretion with respect to what it can do with a payment from Canada; limited discretion can suffice for beneficial owner status; and
  • as stated in Prévost, neither Canadian domestic law, the international community nor the Canadian government through the process of objection to OECD materials have adopted a pejorative view of holding companies established in favourable treaty countries; as noted by the court, the OECD Conduit Report warned of the dangers of readily looking through corporations which is "incompatible with the principle of the legal status of corporate bodies, as recognized in the legal systems of all OECD Member countries".2 

Unless reversed on appeal, Velcro Canada represents yet another loss of a "treaty shopping" case by the Crown, and would seem to highlight the limitations of attempting to use the beneficial ownership concept as a broad anti-avoidance rule to address perceived treaty shopping arrangements.  Instead, it would appear that countries should negotiate specific limitation on benefits provisions to the extent that they intend for treaty benefits to be limited to particular classes of taxpayers. 

However, taxpayers should continue to exercise caution in this area for a number of reasons.  First, in 2011 the OECD published proposed amendments to the Commentaries' interpretation of "beneficial ownership" that look for "the full right to use and enjoy the [income] unconstrained by a contractual or legal obligation to pass the payment received to another person." 3  This proposed formulation of the "beneficial ownership" test, if accepted by Canada and other countries, would be more difficult to satisfy than the one applied in Velcro Canada.  Second, not all taxpayers implementing back-to-back arrangements will have the benefit of an intermediary treaty entity like Holdings, with multiple sources and uses of funds.  In the case of a single-purpose vehicle, it may be more difficult to break the equation insisted on by the Crown in Velcro Canada between a contractual obligation to make further payments based on Canadian source payments and an "automatic flow of funds".  Finally, there are other tools at the CRA's disposal to combat treaty shopping, including Canada's statutory general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR).  In 2007, in MIL (Investments) S.A. v. The Queen, the Federal Court of Appeal held that GAAR did not apply to deny treaty benefits to a Cayman Islands company continued into Luxembourg for purposes of (among other things) taking advantage of the favourable capital gains article in Canada's treaty with Luxembourg.   However, there is a case currently before the Supreme Court of Canada (commonly known as Garron) that, depending on the outcome, may provide greater traction for GAAR-based challenges of treaty shopping arrangements.4  Taxpayers should monitor further judicial and administrative developments relating to the use of treaty-based holding company structures, and to apply existing case law to their own facts with due regard for the facts considered relevant by the courts in the earlier decisions.  Osler's international tax specialists are well-placed to advise on such matters.


1 2009 DTC 5053 (FCA), affirming 2008 DTC 3080 (TCC).

2 OECD, "Double Taxation Conventions and the Use of Conduit Companies" (OECD, Paris, 1987), at paragraph 24(i).

3 OECD, "Clarification of the Meaning of 'Beneficial Owner' in the OECD Model Tax Convention" (Paris: OECD, 29 April 2011 to 15 July 2011).

4 St. Michael Trust Corp. v. The Queen, 2010 FCA 309, affirming Garron et al. v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 450.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
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
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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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