Canada: Embedded Liabilities: The Effect Of Daishowa On The Oil And Gas Sector

Overview

The Supreme Court of Canada (the SCC) recently released its decision and reasons in Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd. v. Canada (Daishowa). The SCC's decision was favourable to the taxpayer. Although the facts of this case were restricted to the treatment of reforestation obligations, the decision will have a significant impact across various industry sectors, in particular the oil and gas industry with respect to environmental and reclamation obligations.

Summary of Facts

Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd. (DMI) operated two timber divisions in Alberta, which were engaged in the business of harvesting logs and manufacturing finished timber. Each division held a forest tenure under which it was licensed to cut and remove timber from provincial Crown lands. Under the Alberta statutory regime, the forest tenures also imposed certain reforestation obligations to reforest the areas from which it had harvested timber. DMI was statutorily obligated to obtain the consent of the Province of Alberta prior to an assignment of any forest tenures, and such consent would only be provided if the purchaser assumed the future reforestation obligations.

In 1999 and 2000, DMI sold the two timber divisions, along with the corresponding forest tenures. In 1999, DMI sold its High Level Division to Tolko Industries Ltd. (Tolko). The sale agreement provided that C$20-million was allocated to the forest tenure, and that Tolko would assume the statutory reforestation obligations; the undiscounted cost of performing the reforestation obligations was estimated to be C$11-million, and the agreement provided for an adjustment to the purchase price in the event that the post-closing estimate of the reforestation obligations differed from the original estimate. In 2000, DMI sold the Brewster Lumber Division to Seehta Forest Products Ltd. (Seehta). The sale agreement also provided that Seehta would assume the statutory reforestation obligations; however, the agreement did not specify an estimated cost of the reforestation obligations.

For accounting purposes, in the years in which DMI harvested timber, it estimated on an annual basis the amount of future reforestation obligations arising in the year and claimed that amount as an expense against revenue. For tax purposes, DMI added the amount of the reforestation expense back into its income. As such, DMI did not claim tax deductions for the estimated future reforestation obligations that arose as it was harvesting timber. In the years in which the sales took place, DMI included in its income for accounting purposes the amounts previously claimed as expenses in order to reflect the fact that it no longer had any reforestation obligations in respect of those tenures. In its 1999 and 2000 income tax returns, DMI did not include any amount in its income to reflect the purchasers' assumption of the reforestation obligations.

The Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) reassessed DMI with respect to the 1999 and 2000 taxation years to include the undiscounted amount of the cost of the reforestation obligations in DMI's "proceeds of disposition" for tax purposes such that its proceeds of disposition was increased from C$20-million to C$31-million. DMI appealed that assessment.

Lower Court Decisions

The Tax Court of Canada held that the purchaser's assumption of reforestation obligations was properly included in the vendor's proceeds of disposition, and that the assumption of reforestation obligations was part of the consideration. Miller J. discounted the reforestation obligations under each agreement, reasoning that it was not appropriate to add the entire estimated cost of the reforestation obligations to DMI's proceeds of disposition.

The majority of the Federal Court of Appeal held that DMI was required to include the entire undiscounted estimated cost of the reforestation obligations in its proceeds of disposition in the case of the sale to Tolko (the matter was remitted to the Tax Court for redetermination with respect to the sale to Seehta). Mainville J.A. dissented, concluding that the reforestation obligations were inextricably linked to the timber resources and depressed the value of those properties; as such, they had been taken into account by the parties in arriving at the (lower) sale price of C$20-million.

SCC Decision

In a unanimous judgment, the SCC held that DMI was not required to include the estimated cost of the reforestation obligations in its proceeds of disposition for tax purposes. The SCC began by acknowledging 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 be part of the vendor's proceeds of disposition. The SCC gave the example of a property encumbered by a mortgage. If the purchaser pays cash and also assumes the vendor's mortgage, the sale price of the property would include the amount of cash received and the amount of the assumed mortgage; thus, the vendor's proceeds of disposition would include both amounts. The Minister argued that a forest tenure with reforestation obligations was akin to a property encumbered by a mortgage. DMI and industry interveners, namely the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), argued that the sale of a forest tenure with reforestation obligations is comparable to the sale of a building in need of repairs. The SCC agreed with this analogy, stating that reforestation obligations, just like the need for repairs, have the effect of depressing the value of the property. In comparison, the vendor's indebtedness (for example, on a mortgage) does not affect the value of the property. The reforestation obligations, just like the cost of future repairs, are a future cost embedded in the property and do not form an additional part of the sale price of the property. Thus, the vendor would not be required to include the estimated costs assumed by the purchaser in its proceeds of disposition for tax purposes.

Embedded Liabilities

The SCC went on to explain that the reforestation obligations are embedded in the forest tenure by virtue of the policy and practice in Alberta. Under Alberta's regulatory scheme, a forest tenure cannot be sold without the consent of the provincial government, and such consent will only be given if the purchaser assumes the reforestation obligations. The Province of Alberta, as an intervener, took the position that after a transfer has been approved, the vendor is absolved of all liability for the reforestation obligations. The SCC held that by virtue of Alberta's statutory scheme, the reforestation obligations are "embedded" in the forest tenure, and cannot be severed from the property itself. As a result, the reforestation obligations are future costs which decrease the amount a prospective purchaser would be willing to pay. The SCC used the example of the High Level Division forest tenure, which had a value of C$20-million, and the reforestation costs had been estimated to be C$11-million. The SCC made it very clear that DMI did not have C$31-million of value to sell, stating that under no circumstances could DMI have received C$31-million for the forest tenure. The reforestation obligations, unlike a distinct existing debt, "were embedded in the [forest] tenure so as to be a future cost associated with ownership of the tenure".

The SCC also noted that the fact that the parties agreed to an estimated future cost of the reforestation obligations and that DMI estimated such future costs for accounting purposes was irrelevant, noting that any amount assigned to the reforestation obligations in the sale agreement was simply a factor in determining the fair market value of the forest tenures.

Although the SCC concluded that Alberta's regulatory scheme, which expressly prohibits the sale of a forest tenure without the assumption by the purchaser of the reforestation obligations, has the effect of embedding the reforestation obligations in the tenure, CAPP submitted that future obligations may be embedded in a property right even in the absence of a statutory or other governmental requirement. The SCC stated:

"While I need not decide that question on the record before me, I would certainly not foreclose the possibility that obligations associated with a property right could be embedded in that property right without there being a statute, regulation or government policy that expressly restricts a vendor from selling the property right without assigning those obligations to the purchaser."

Impact on the Oil and Gas Industry

While at first glance, this appears to be a favourable result for the oil and gas industry, this statement is not binding and does not create legal precedent. While the Court accepted the concept of an embedded liability, it did not go so far as to make a pronouncement as to whether other obligations, such as environmental obligations in the oil and gas industry which the purchaser is not explicitly required by legislation to assume, are also embedded in the property such that they cannot be separated from the property right. What must now be determined is whether there is a substantial difference between reforestation obligations, which by statute, must be assumed by a purchaser inorder to effect a sale of a forest tenure, and environmental obligations in the oil and gas context.

Environmental and Reclamation Obligations in Alberta

Under the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA), an operator has a duty to conserve and reclaim specified land. "Specified land" includes land that is being used or has been used or held for the construction or operation of a well, a pipeline, a battery, an oil production site, a plant, an exploration operation, and a mine. An "operator" includes a working interest participant in a well, a mine, an oil sands processing plant, a plant or facility, a holder of a surface lease, an approval or registration holder who carries on or has carried on an activity on or in respect of specified land pursuant to an approval or registration, or any person who carries on or has carried on an activity on or in respect of specified land other than pursuant to an approval or registration. Although there is no specific rule in the EPEA which prohibits the transfer of a property right without the assumption by the purchaser of reclamation obligations, it is clear that by virtue of the legislation, the purchaser does assume the reclamation obligations; as operator, the purchaser has the statutory duty to reclaim the land.

It is generally the practice of Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD) to hold the last or current operator responsible for reclamation. This practice has been recognized and accepted by the courts, as well as by the oil and gas industry. However, in contrast to the forestry industry, the vendor of an oil and gas property right is not completely absolved of liability upon the transfer of a property right to a purchaser. While the general practice of AESRD is to hold the current operator responsible, AESRD does have the discretion and ability to go after any previous holder of the property right. The "polluter pays" principle has been enshrined as one of the purposes of the EPEA, and recognizes the responsibility of polluters to pay for the costs of their actions. One of the tools regularly employed by AESRD is an environmental protection order (EPO), which may be issued for a variety of purposes, including reclamation, and EPOs have been issued to a historic operator years after the property had been transferred to a purchaser. For example, in Imperial Oil Ltd. (Re), Imperial Oil was held to be a "person responsible" for historic contamination under the EPEA. In that case, the development of Lynnview Ridge in Calgary had been operated as an Imperial Oil refinery and later transformed into a housing development. Soil contamination was eventually discovered, and 20 years after Imperial Oil had sold the land, Imperial Oil, as a "person responsible", was issued an EPO and required to assess the extent of the pollution and clean it up or properly manage its risks. Imperial Oil challenged the EPO, arguing that the liabilities associated with the EPO should be shared amongst subsequent owners of the land, but this argument was dismissed; as the source of the hydrocarbon contamination, Imperial Oil was the party responsible for the clean-up. This was a clear example of AESRD applying the "polluter pays" principle and holding a previous owner of the property responsible for the cost of remediation.

As argued by CAPP in Daishowa, the statutory duty to reclaim is so connected to oil and gas activities that this obligation cannot be separated from the property right itself. Essentially, under the Alberta regulatory regime, the purchaser acquires the oil and gas property on an "as is" basis, and generally, the current owner of the property right will be held responsible for the reclamation. Further, as a matter of accepted commercial practice, the estimated cost of future reclamation is factored in when arriving at the value and therefore the purchase price of an oil and gas property, and is generally not set apart as a liability distinct from the property right itself. Just as with the reforestation obligations in Daishowa, the reclamation obligations under the EPEA are future costs that cannot be severed from the property, and which simply serve to depress the value of the property. In fact, in the oil and gas industry, the reclamation obligations are so much a part of the asset that as a matter of commercial practice, there is generally no explicit assumption by the purchaser of reclamation obligations in the purchase and sale agreement.

Contingent Liabilities

An additional layer of uncertainty exists in the oil and gas industry with respect to certain contingent obligations, such as the remediation of potential gas releases or water and soil contamination. Unlike reclamation, these obligations are contingent in nature; they depend upon an event which may or may not occur. In Daishowa, the SCC considered and dismissed DMI's argument that the reforestation obligations should not be included in its proceeds of disposition because of their contingent nature, as this argument assumed that the reforestation obligations were not embedded in the forest tenure and would constitute proceeds of disposition if not for their contingent nature. However, the SCC did provide some useful comments with respect to contingent liabilities, again using the example of a sale of a building requiring repair. The SCC stated that the purchaser's assumption of the future costs of repairing the building is not part of the sale price, regardless of whether the requirement for repairs depends on some future event.The SCC held that an obligation which cannot be severed from the property should not form part of the vendor's proceeds of disposition, and it is irrelevant whether that obligation is contingent or absolute.

Potential remediation liabilities, just like reclamation and reforestation obligations, are embedded in the oil and gas property right, and they will decrease the sale price by affecting the amount the purchaser is willing to pay for the property right. Certain environmental remediation liabilities will be contingent in nature, as they may not be discovered during the due diligence process. For example, the effects of a hydrocarbon release may occur years after the property is transferred to the purchaser, with no indication of such an event at the due diligence stage. The liability for such future occurrences is assumed by the purchaser, and often, the purchaser will indemnify the vendor against these contingent liabilities. The assumption by the purchaser of such liabilities, just like reclamation obligations, is factored into the purchase price. These liabilities, although contingent in nature, are not distinct and severable; they are embedded in the oil and gas property right, and are future costs associated with the ownership of the property right.

As a matter of commercial practice, potential remediation liabilities are often dealt with in a purchase and sale agreement. Generally, the purchaser will assume the liability for any future contamination which may arise, and provide an indemnity to the vendor. Although these are contractual obligations, there are also statutory obligations in place. As discussed above, the practice of AESRD is to issue an EPO to the current owner of a property right for any contamination; however, AESRD may issue an EPO to a previous owner based on the "polluter pays" principle.

Practical Effect of Daishowa on the Oil and Gas Industry

Overall, it appears that the regulatory regime in Alberta with respect to reclamation and other environmental obligations is substantially similar to the regulatory regime in Daishowa. Although there is not an express prohibition of a sale of an oil and gas property right without the assumption by the purchaser of reclamation and other environmental obligations, the effect of the EPEAis to transfer the duty to reclaim and the responsibility for any remediation to the purchaser. The one major difference is with respect to the vendor's liability once the property right has been transferred. In the forestry context, once a forest tenure has been assigned, the vendor is absolved of all liability for reforestation obligations. In the oil and gas context, it is the general practice of AESRD to hold the current owner responsible for reclamation and remediation, but the "polluter pays" principle can and has been used to hold a previous owner responsible for those obligations. This difference provides an interesting twist, and bolsters the argument that the assumption by the purchaser of reclamation and other environmental obligations should not be included in the vendor's proceeds of disposition. In Daishowa, the Minister argued that the relief of DMI from the reforestation obligations constituted consideration for the assumption by the purchaser of those liabilities, and that DMI received a benefit on the assumption of the reforestation obligations by the purchaser. In the forestry context, perhaps the vendor does receive a benefit, as it is absolved of all future reforestation obligations. However, in the oil and gas context, it is arguable that the vendor is not receiving a benefit at all; based on the Alberta regulatory regime, the vendor may not be absolved of any future liability, and may one day be called upon to pay for reclamation or remediation costs.

The practical effect of Daishowa is that parties should use caution in drafting their purchase and sale agreements. It is likely that in Daishowa, the Canada Revenue Agency arguably adopted its assessing position because the parties identified an estimated future cost of reforestation. Parties should be aware of what obligations are being assumed by the purchaser, and whether such obligations are "embedded" in the property right itself. Where assumed obligations are embedded in the property right, parties should be cautious to treat them as such, rather than as separate and distinct liabilities. Although as a matter of commercial practice, the estimated costs of future reclamation and remediation are factored in when arriving at the fair market value of a property right, the purchase and sale agreement should provide for a single price for the property right, and as a matter of caution, should not allocate any amount to any embedded obligations which are assumed by the purchaser.

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
Events from this Firm
16 Oct 2018, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Join Blakes lawyers for our 10th annual overview of recent legal and regulatory developments and practical strategies to navigate the changing regulation of Canada’s payments industry.

26 Oct 2018, Other, Vancouver, Canada

Cybersecurity, including data privacy and security obligations, has become a critical chapter in every company’s risk management playbook.

30 Oct 2018, Other, Toronto, Canada

Please join us for discussions on recent updates and legal developments in pension and employee benefits as well as employment law issues.

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
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