Canada: Assumed Obligations Embedded In Property Not Included In Vendor’s Proceeds, Supreme Court Of Canada Finds In Daishowa Case

Last Updated: June 5 2013
Article by Kim Maguire and Steve Suarez

Most Read Contributor in Canada, September 2016


On May 23, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") released its decision in Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd. v. The Queen (2013 SCC 29). This case has been followed closely by the tax community since it concerns an issue of fundamental commercial importance: the tax treatment of liabilities and obligations assumed by a purchaser that relate to the asset being sold.

In a unanimous decision, the SCC overturned the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal ("FCA") majority and found in favour of the taxpayer that no portion of certain reforestation obligations assumed by the purchaser on the acquisition of certain timber harvest rights should be included in the taxpayer's proceeds of disposition.

While Daishowa is particularly important to the natural resources sector given the magnitude of reclamation obligations frequently inherited by a purchaser of mining, timber or oil and gas assets, the issue arises in asset acquisitions of all types, and so carries considerable significance to the tax community generally. The SCC's decision can be found at:


In 1999, the taxpayer ("Daishowa") decided to sell two timber mill divisions situated in Alberta, including the rights to harvest timber on the surrounding land (which were "timber resource properties" for the purposes of the Income Tax Act (Canada)). Under the terms of the harvest rights, the owner was required to plant and manage a new crop of trees to replace those harvested. The applicable Alberta regulatory scheme provided that the reforestation obligations flowed with the ownership of the harvest rights and the transfer of the harvest rights required the consent of the province of Alberta, which would not approve a transfer unless the purchaser assumed the reforestation obligations.

Several interested parties submitted bids on the more valuable of the two divisions ("High Level")1. The winning bid offered $180 million, less an amount in respect of the long-term reforestation obligations associated with the harvest rights.

Based on tax advice it received from an accounting firm, Daishowa negotiated with the purchaser for a different structure in the purchase and sale agreement. In the final agreement, the purchase price for the property was stated as $169 million ($20 million of which was allocated to the harvest rights), with the purchaser inheriting the reforestation obligations and Daishowa representing that the estimated cost of fulfilling those obligations was $11 million. The parties agreed to have a reforestation statement prepared and audited by an accounting firm, and for Daishowa to make a payment to the purchaser if the amount determined in the statement was greater than $11 million (or the reverse if less than $11 million). The reforestation statement estimated the cost of reforestation at $11,296,225, resulting in a payment of $296,225 by Daishowa to the purchaser.

Daishowa did not include in its proceeds of disposition any amount relating to the reforestation obligations assumed by the purchaser on the sale of High Level. The Canada Revenue Agency reassessed Daishowa to increase Daishowa's proceeds of disposition for High Level by $11 million.


The Tax Court of Canada ("TCC") (2010 TCC 317) held that some amount relating to the reforestation obligations should be included in Daishowa's proceeds. The TCC did not, however, accept that the $11 million reflected the value of those obligations for tax purposes. Instead, the TCC held that an amount equal to the current portion of the reforestation obligations (as determined for accounting purposes) plus 20 percent of the long-term portion should be added to Daishowa's proceeds. The TCC cited the uncertainty around the actual costs of reforestation and the Alberta regulatory regime as reasons for the significant discount.

Daishowa appealed, arguing that no amounts in respect of the reforestation obligations should be added to its proceeds; while the CRA cross-appealed, asking for the full $11 million to be included.


The FCA majority (2011 FCA 267) approved the TCC's finding that the purchaser's assumption of the reforestation obligations on the High Level sale constituted consideration to Daishowa; however, the FCA majority disagreed with the TCC as to the appropriate amount to be included in Daishowa's proceeds of disposition.

As a starting point, the FCA majority acknowledged that, as a matter of principle, the phrase "proceeds of disposition" includes money received as well as other forms of valuable consideration, including liabilities of the vendor assumed by the purchaser. The majority went on to find that

  • the purchaser's assumption of Daishowa's reforestation obligations constituted consideration which had to be included in Daishowa's proceeds of disposition for High Level, notwithstanding that the purchase price (as defined in the purchase and sale agreement) had been structured so as not to formally include the assumption of the liabilities,
  • this conclusion was consistent with the conduct of the parties (even the unsuccessful bidders) and the wording in the bid documents that indicated the assumption of the reforestation obligations on the High Level sale formed part of the consideration, and
  • the purchaser and Daishowa had quantified the value of the reforestation obligation at $11 million (noting in particular the exact dollar amount arrived at by the accountants), and accordingly, that was the amount to be added to Daishowa's proceeds of disposition.

The FCA dissenting judgement advocated for adding nothing to Daishowa's proceeds of disposition on the grounds that the reforestation liabilities were an inextricable part of the property and therefore the reforestation liabilities simply depressed the value of the property.

The FCA decision was reviewed in the October 2011 BLG Tax Law Bulletin.


At the SCC, a nine-member bench unanimously found that Daishowa was not required to add any amount in respect of reforestation obligations to its proceeds of disposition for tax purposes.

The SCC acknowledged that as a matter of principle, the assumption of a vendor's liability by a purchaser may constitute part of the sale price and therefore part of the vendor's proceeds of disposition. The SCC illustrated this point with a simple example of a property that is encumbered by a mortgage: if the purchaser pays the sale price by paying some cash and assuming the mortgage, then the amount of the cash and the mortgage liability assumed should be included in the vendor's proceeds of disposition.

In Daishowa's case, however, the SCC found that the reforestation obligations associated with High Level were not a distinct existing liability comparable to a mortgage. Instead, the SCC found that

  • the Alberta regulatory scheme had the effect of embedding the reforestation obligations in the harvest rights (i.e., they could not be separated from one another), and therefore the harvest rights were more analogous to property in need of repair than property encumbered by a mortgage,
  • as such, the reforestation obligations depressed the value of the harvest rights (i.e. from $31 million to $20 million) and therefore Daishowa did not have $31 million of value to sell, and
  • the fact the parties agreed to a specific estimate of future reforestation costs made no difference (in contrast to what the FCA suggested), rather the estimate was simply a factor in determining the value of the harvest rights.

On that basis, the SCC concluded that no amount in respect of the reforestation obligations should be added to Daishowa's proceeds of disposition. Most interestingly, the Court explicitly left open the possibility (without deciding) that obligations other than those that must, as a matter of law, be assumed by a purchaser of the property in order for the vendor to sell the property could be sufficiently embedded within a property such that the same analysis would apply.

The SCC observed that its conclusion was supported by the fact it resolved the asymmetry that would otherwise result as between Daishowa and the purchaser who, the CRA argued, should not be permitted to add any amount in respect of the assumed obligations to its cost of the harvest rights. In doing so, at paragraph 43, the SCC endorsed the view that "an interpretation of the [Income Tax Act] that promotes symmetry and fairness through a harmonious taxation scheme is to be preferred over an interpretation which promotes neither value".

The SCC also considered and dismissed Daishowa's argument that the contingent nature of the reforestation obligations supported excluding these amounts from its proceeds of disposition. The contingent or absolute nature of the liability was irrelevant in the SCC's view – what mattered was whether they were a distinct and severable liability, which they were not.


The differences in the approaches taken by the various courts that heard Daishowa may be attributed to confusion about what, in legal and economic terms, was actually being purchased and sold. The reasons of the TCC and the FCA majority are premised on the understanding that the High Level harvest rights had a value of something more than $20 million even though both acknowledged that under the Alberta regulatory regime, the purchaser was required to assume the reforestation obligations to complete the sale. The conduct of the parties, and in particular the taxpayer and CRA's agreed statement at trial that "if the purchaser had not assumed the reforestation obligations, the cash component of the sale price would have been higher"certainly encouraged the TCC and the FCA majority to view the reforestation obligations as separate obligations that could be severed from the property (like a mortgage) when, in fact, they were invariably obligations of the property's owner, and therefore inextricably linked to the property. A more accurate statement that would have reflected the actual legal and economic rights and obligations of the parties would have been something to the effect of: "if the harvest rights had not been subject to the reforestation obligations, the value of those rights would have been higher."

The SCC, on the other hand, clearly found that there was no more than $20 million worth of harvest rights after taking into account the future cost of reforestation obligations embedded in them. Having only $20 million of value to sell and dealing with an arm's length purchaser, Daishowa should logically have only received $20 million for those harvest rights, and this is demonstrably the correct result in every respect. On different facts Daishowa could have had property worth $31 million if, for example, it spent money prior to the sale addressing the reforestation obligations embedded in the property and thus enhancing the value of what it had to sell (in which case it would have received the appropriate tax recognition for the amounts it so spent). But those are simply not Daishowa's facts.

The SCC's decision in Daishowa is certainly welcomed by the tax community and will surely provide additional certainty on the tax treatment of assumed obligations. In addition, taxpayers and their advisors may take a few practice points from the case.

  • When planning and negotiating a transaction, it is imperative that the parties have a complete understanding of what it is the vendor owns and the respective legal rights and obligations of the vendor and purchaser.
  • The documentation should accurately reflect the parties' understanding at every stage of the transaction (including the bid documents), and in particular should characterize embedded liabilities and obligations (to the extent that they need to be explicitly addressed at all) as features of the underlying property rather than as something severable and distinct from that property.
  • To the extent that a purchaser is inheriting embedded obligations that cannot be severed from the property, wherever possible it is preferable to express the purchase price as a net amount (e.g., $20 million) rather than a gross amount ($30 million) to be reduced by some estimate of an embedded liability or impairment that the purchaser is inheriting.

The SCC had little difficulty determining the correct tax result once the true nature of the transaction was made clear to it, as the 9-0 result illustrates. As such, Daishowa shows how important it is for parties to a commercial transaction to get tax input as early as possible and throughout each stage of the transaction. The clearer the parties' understanding of their respective legal rights and obligations and the more precisely these rights and obligations are expressed in the transaction correspondence and documentation, the less likely the tax authorities will view the transaction as something other than what the parties intended.


1 The sale of the second division ("Brewster") was also considered by the courts; however the focus on all three decisions was primarily on High Level and therefore the sale of Brewster is not discussed in any detail in this bulletin.

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 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
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.