Canada: Court Rules No Capital Loss Under GAAR Without Economic Loss

Canada's Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) on October 15 issued its latest decision under the general anti-avoidance rule in Triad Gestco Ltd. v. The Queen, 2012 FCA 258. The FCA denied the taxpayer's capital loss on the basis that it had suffered no economic loss.

Although the legislation does not expressly state that a taxpayer must suffer an economic loss, "the capital gain system is generally understood to apply to real gains and real losses," the FCA said.


Triad Gestco (TG) realized a capital gain of $8 million in its 2001 tax year on the sale of a commercial building, at arm's length, to a related party. It then completed transactions in its 2002 tax year to create an offsetting capital loss.

TG generated the capital loss by paying $8 million to acquire common shares in a new corporation. The common shares had an initial fair market value and adjusted cost base (ACB) to TG of $8 million. The new corporation then declared a stock dividend that it paid by issuing preferred shares with nominal paid-up capital but a redemption value of $8 million to TG. This shifted all the value of the new company from the common shares to the preferred shares. Because the shares had nominal paid-up capital, their ACB to TG was also nominal. Consequently, the taxpayer held common shares with an ACB of $8 million and nominal FMV, and preferred shares with a nominal ACB but an FMV of $8 million.

After the value of the common shares was reduced to a nominal amount, the taxpayer sold the common shares to a trust settled (by an unrelated person) for the benefit of the taxpayer's majority shareholder. Because the taxpayer's $8 million cost for the common shares exceeded the nominal sale proceeds received from the trust, a capital loss of $8 million was created in circumstances in which there was no economic loss. The taxpayer then sought to deduct the capital loss against the capital gain that it realized on the sale of the commercial building.

The Canada Revenue Agency applied the GAAR to deny TG's deduction of the capital loss on the basis that the company did not incur any economic loss.1 The only issue before the FCA was whether the Tax Court of Canada (TCC) was correct to conclude that the relevant provisions had been abused.

TCC Decision and Taxpayer Submissions

The TCC concluded that an abuse occurred because the transactions were undertaken to "defeat the underlying rationale of the capital loss provisions of the [Income Tax] Act," in part because "the appellant created artificially devalued property that was transferred to a person within the same economic unit to create an artificial capital loss without incurring any real economic loss."

The taxpayer argued that the TCC's conclusion was incorrect for several reasons:

  • The presence of abuse must be determined based on the purpose of the specific tax provisions that give rise to the benefit, and the TCC failed to root its analysis in specific provisions.
  • There is no general indication in the Income Tax Act that it allows for capital loss claims only if there is an "economic loss"; in fact, several provisions deem a gain or loss to occur in the absence of an economic loss.
  • The economic loss concept should be rejected in the circumstances. Although a 2005 amendment would have caused the trust to be "affiliated" with the taxpayer (with the result that the loss would be denied in the circumstances), the transactions at issue occurred prior to 2005.

FCA's Decision

The FCA concluded that the TCC's decision was correct, but for different reasons. The FCA did not accept the economic loss concept, noting that Parliament was aware that the concept of "affiliated persons" did not include trusts when the legislation was first enacted, and that when the definition was amended to add trusts in 2005, the amendment was not made retroactive.

The FCA agreed with the analysis of Justice Brent Paris in the companion case, 1207192 Ontario Limited v. The Queen, 2011 TCC 283, aff'd, 2012 FCA 259.2 The FCA agreed with Justice Paris's conclusion that the relevant "provisions — particularly 38(b) — provide relief as an offset against capital gain when a taxpayer has suffered an economic loss on the disposition of property" (emphasis added). The FCA referred to the specific provisions that allowed for a capital loss to be deducted, saying, "[t]he result proposed by the appellant is fundamentally counter-intuitive as the capital gain system is generally understood to apply to real gains and real losses."

In support of its position, the FCA pointed to the 1966 Carter Commission Report, which predated the introduction of the capital gain system, and to House of Lords jurisprudence that supported an interpretation of the capital gain provisions that included the concept of economic loss. After acknowledging that the legislation does not expressly include the phrase "economic loss," the FCA read the concept of economic loss into the relevant provisions, including paragraph 38(b). "Given their purpose — i.e. to tax the net realized increase in the value of capital assets — it is not possible, in my view, to read the provisions otherwise," the FCA observed.

Comparison of TCC Approaches

It is interesting to compare the TCC's abuse analyses in the Triad Gestco (2011 TCC 259) and Ontario Limited cases. Both cases involved similar facts and issues, and the taxpayer lost in both.

In Triad Gestco, however, Justice Réal Favreau concluded that the object, spirit, and purpose underlying the capital loss rules are to deny recognition of "artificial capital losses realized within the same economic unit." He reached that conclusion relying in part on the stop loss rules in paragraph 40(2)(g), subsection 40(3.4). Those rules apply to deny or suspend capital losses created in transactions between "affiliated persons." The definition of affiliated persons did not extend to trusts in 2002 (one of the years reassessed in Triad Gestco), but was amended to do so in 2005. It was commonly understood that the rules would have applied to the taxpayer in Triad Gestco if the 2005 amendments had been in force at that time. In effect, Justice Favreau regarded the 2005 amendments as fixing an oversight in the original stop loss rules.

Justice Paris respectfully rejected that reasoning in Ontario Limited. In his analysis, the various stop loss rules in the ITA did not indicate any general policy against losses realized between related parties, but rather "were intended to deny losses in the limited and specific circumstances set out in those provisions."

Justice Paris said the definition of affiliated persons as it read in 2002 "sets out a carefully crafted group of relationships, and I believe that it is reasonable to infer that Parliament chose to limit the scope of the definition accordingly." In effect, he regarded the 2005 amendments as signifying a change in policy, not a repair of defective rules. Those rules did not extend to trusts in 2002, and therefore the GAAR should not apply to deny the taxpayer's capital loss realized in that year on a disposition to a trust merely because the same transaction would have been subject to the stop loss rules as subsequently amended, he said.

Justice Paris did, however, conclude that the rules allowing the deduction of capital losses were intended to apply only to real "economic losses" suffered by a taxpayer. In reaching this much more circumscribed conclusion, he relied in particular on comments in the Carter Commission Report; former subsection 55(1) (denying artificial or unduly created capital losses), which was repealed in 1988 in conjunction with the enactment of the GAAR; and the Department of Finance's technical notes, which accompanied the original introduction of the GAAR.

The FCA in Triad Gestco explicitly accepted the reasoning of Justice Paris over that of Justice Favreau — namely, that the GAAR applies because the taxpayer suffered only a "paper loss" without any real economic loss, and not because there is an overarching policy in the ITA that denies losses incurred within the same economic unit.

Of course, the result was the same to Triad Gestco: It lost. Unless overturned on appeal, the case remains a salutary reminder that the CRA must prove that any alleged abuse under the GAAR is firmly rooted in a proper textual, contextual, and purposive interpretation of the specific provisions relied on by the taxpayer to achieve the tax benefit in question, and that the GAAR should not be used as a sort of retroactive amendment tool.


Triad Gestco also argued on appeal that disallowing the capital gain would be unfair because it would realize a capital gain equal to the denied capital loss on its ultimate disposition of the preferred shares. The FCA gave that argument short shrift, however, noting simply that the taxpayer had not suggested any "credible scenario" in which the preferred shares would be sold. Had it done so, a court might have had some basis to adjust the consequences of the application of the GAAR as permitted under subsection 245(5). However, since no scenario was advanced, no further relief under that provision was granted.


This case provides authority that the Canadian system of taxing capital gains and losses, and paragraph 38(b) in particular, must be read with the understanding that "economic loss" is an unwritten aspect of the system that must be taken into account in tax planning. This is in contrast to the Supreme Court of Canada's seminal decision under the GAAR, Canada Trustco Mortgage Co., 2005 SCC 54, in which the Court declined to read the concept of "economic cost" into the provisions allowing for a deduction of capital cost allowance.

Triad Gestco has until December 14 to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. At the time this article was written, it was not known whether Triad Gestco intends to seek that leave.

Originally published in Tax Notes Int'l, October 29, 2012


1. In order for GAAR to apply, there must be a tax benefit, an avoidance transaction, and an abuse of the specific tax provisions relied on by the taxpayer to achieve the tax benefit.

2. In another case involving a similar issue, Global Equity Fund Ltd. v. The Queen, 2011 TCC 507, the taxpayer was successful at the TCC level. This decision was appealed to the FCA, but its decision has not been released.

About BLG

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.

In association with
Related Topics
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