Canada: The Line Is Far From Bright

Last Updated: November 3 2005
Article by K

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) yesterday released its decisions in Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada ("Canada Trustco") and Mathew v. Canada ("Mathew"), the first two cases it has heard regarding the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) under the Income Tax Act. The facts in Mathew are for all practical purposes the same as those considered in OSFC Holdings Ltd. v. Canada ("OSFC"), a Federal Court of Appeal case previously considered to be the highest authority on the GAAR. The SCC unanimously dismissed both appeals; meaning Canada Trustco won and Mathew lost.

Canada Trustco won because (i) the Tax Court judge properly determined that the meaning of cost for purposes of capital cost allowance (CCA) was generally legal cost and not economic cost, and (ii) the Crown was unable to establish that the facts differed materially from a normal domestic sale-leaseback transaction. Mathew lost because (i) the Tax Court judge properly determined that the purpose of the specific provisions and the general policy of the Act is to prohibit the transfer of losses between taxpayers, and (ii) the Crown established that the only reasonable conclusion is that the transactions in question, if allowed to stand, would frustrate that policy.

Determining if an Abuse Occurred

Determining whether an abuse has occurred involves two steps. First, the Court must conduct a unified, textual, contextual and purposive analysis of the provisions giving rise to the tax benefit in order to determine why they were in place and why the benefit was conferred. This is a question of law. Second, as a question of fact, the Court must examine the factual context of the case in order to determine whether the avoidance transaction defeated or frustrated the object, spirit or purpose of the provisions in issue. If the existence of abusive tax avoidance is unclear, the benefit of the doubt goes to the taxpayer. Where, in cases such as these, the Tax Court has appropriately determined the purpose of the provisions under consideration, the Court’s determination as to whether the case in question defeated or frustrated that purpose will not be overturned absent a palpable and overriding error.

Interpreting the Act

The interpretation of a provision must be made according to a textual, contextual and purposive analysis to find a meaning that is harmonious with the Act as a whole. Even when the words of a provision are precise and unequivocal, although the ordinary meaning of the words will play a dominant role in the interpretive process, reference to the Act as a whole must be had before the apparently obvious interpretation can be confirmed.

Onus

Unless the taxpayer can meet the onus of establishing that either (i) there was not a tax benefit or (ii) there was not an avoidance transaction, the issue of abuse arises. The onus is then on the Crown to establish that the only reasonable conclusion is that the impugned transactions are an abuse of the Act.

Use of Extrinsic Materials

Although the Court commented that permissible extrinsic aids may be used in determining the object, spirit and purpose of the provisions of the Act, they gave no specific guidance as to what aids might be permissible. The Court relied on the explanatory notes issued when the GAAR was added to the Act and on commentators. However, the Court also made it very clear that Courts can not search for an overriding policy of the Act that is not based on a unified, textual, contextual and purposive interpretation of the specific provisions in issue.

Misuse and Abuse

The analysis of the misuse of a provision of the Act and of the abuse of the Act read as a whole are inseparable. The interpretation of specific provisions of the Act can not be separated from contextual considerations arising from other provisions.

Series of Transactions

The SCC endorsed the tests for a series of transactions, as adopted by the House of Lords in Craven v. White and Ramsey, as involving a number of transactions that are "pre-ordained in order to produce a given result" with "no practical likelihood that the pre-planned events would not take place in the order ordained". The Court then turned to the extended meaning of a series of transactions contained in subsection 248(10) as including transactions or events completed in contemplation of the series. In this regard, the Court held that "in contemplation of" is to be read in the broad sense of "because of" or "in relation to" the series. The phrase can be applied to events either before or after the basic avoidance transaction.

If any one transaction in a series of transactions is an avoidance transaction, then the tax benefit that results from the series may be denied under the GAAR.

Meaning of Avoidance Transaction

The GAAR does not apply to a transaction that "may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit". These words contemplate an objective assessment of the relevant importance of the driving forces of the transaction. The Tax Court judge must weigh the evidence to determine whether it is reasonable to conclude that the transaction was not undertaken or arranged primarily for a non-tax purpose. The determination invokes reasonableness, suggesting that the possibility of different interpretations of the events must be objectively considered.

Economic Substance

While the "economic substance" of a transaction may be relevant at various stages of the GAAR analysis, this expression has little meaning in isolation from the proper interpretation of the specific provisions of the Act. That is, the economic substance must be considered in relation to the proper interpretation of the specific provisions that are relied upon for the tax benefit.

Canada Trustco

Facts

In 1996 Canada Trustco entered into a transaction where it paid $120 million, the majority of which was borrowed, to purchase a fleet of trailers from Transamerica Leasing Inc. ("TLI"). The equipment was then leased to a second company which, in turn, sub-leased the equipment to TLI. TLI prepaid a significant amount of its lease obligations, which was then applied against the outstanding loan.

Canada Trustco claimed capital cost allowance ("CCA") in the amount of approximately $31 million in 1997, and $67 million in subsequent years. The Minister reassessed the taxpayer by applying the GAAR to deny the CCA claim. The crux of the Minister’s argument was that it is the object and spirit of the CCA regime and of the Income Tax Act (the "Act") as a whole to permit CCA on the "real" or "economic" cost of depreciable property, not on the "legal" cost, the purchase price paid by Canada Trustco in this case. The Minister argued that the fact that TLI prepaid a significant amount of its obligations, which were applied to the outstanding loan, caused the transaction to effectively have no real cost, and that Canada Trustco was claiming CCA tax deductions despite this. As a result, the Minister argued that the legislative intent to limit CCA deductions to actual costs was ignored.

Tax Court of Canada

The trial judge, in reaching his decision, followed the process laid out in the Court of Appeal’s decision in OSFC. The trial judge concluded that the GAAR was not applicable as the transaction was consistent with the object and spirit of the relevant provisions of the Act, and was not abusive. The trial judge also found that the transactions were in all material respects a commercially normal and legitimate sale-leaseback transaction.

Federal Court of Appeal

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown’s appeal, in which the Crown argued that the Tax Court judge made a reviewable error when he concluded that the transactions in this case did not constitute a misuse of a provision of the Act or an abuse of the CCA scheme as a whole. The Court concluded that the Crown had not been able to point to "any source" that suggested that the transaction in issue constituted abusive tax avoidance.

Supreme Court of Canada

The CCA provisions use "cost" in the well-established sense of the amount paid to acquire the assets. Contextually, other provisions of the Act support this interpretation. The purpose of allowing CCA based on legal cost emerges clearly from the scheme of the CCA provisions within the Act as a whole. The applicable CCA provisions of the Act do not refer to economic risk. Where Parliament wanted to introduce economic risk into the meaning of cost related to the CCA provisions it did so expressly. The Tax Court judge, after considering all the circumstances, found the transaction was not so dissimilar from an ordinary sale-leaseback to take it outside the object, spirit or purpose of the relevant provisions. These conclusions on matters of fact should not be displaced unless there is a palpable and overriding error. The SCC may have been influenced by the fact that Canada Trustco received a deferral of tax, but not an absolute tax savings.

Mathew

Facts

Standard Trust Company ("Standard") lent money on the security of mortgages on real property. Upon becoming insolvent in 1991, the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) ordered that Standard be wound-up and appointed a liquidator for the company. To maximize the recovery from the disposition of Standard’s assets, a series of transactions using two partnerships took place which, through the operation of subsection 18(13) of the Act and the partnership rules in section 96 of the Act, allowed the taxpayers to use the losses that had accrued on a portfolio of Standard’s mortgages.

The taxpayers deducted their share of the losses incurred by the partnership in computing their taxable income. Relying on the GAAR, the Minister disallowed the deduction. Previously, in OSFC, the Federal Court of Appeal determined that there was a clear policy in the Act providing that losses cannot generally be transferred from one party to another.

Tax Court of Canada

In reaching its decision, the trial judge applied the principles established in OSFC. The trial judge held that the transactions were a series of avoidance transactions that conferred a tax benefit on the taxpayers. He also found that the transactions were an abuse of the Act as a whole, agreeing with the conclusion in OSFC that there was a clear policy against transferring losses from one taxpayer to another. As a result, the trial judge determined that the Minister properly applied the GAAR.

Federal Court of Appeal

At the Federal Court of Appeal, the taxpayers argued that the subsection 245(4) abuse analysis relied on in OSFC was incorrect. The Federal Court of Appeal concluded that it was only in exceptional circumstances that it could overrule its own prior decision.

Supreme Court of Canada

Interpreted textually, contextually and purposively, subsection 18(13) and section 96 of the Act do not permit arm’s length parties to purchase the tax losses preserved by subsection 18(13) and claim them as their own. The purpose of subsection 18(13) is to transfer a loss to a non-arm’s length party in order to prevent the transferor from realizing a superficial loss. The purpose of the broad treatment of loss sharing between partners is to promote an organizational structure that allows partners to carry on business in common. Parliament could not have intended that the combined effect of the partnership rules and subsection 18(13) would preserve and transfer a loss to be realized by a taxpayer who deals at arm’s length with the original transferor. This was essentially a series of transactions aimed at transferring unrealized losses from one arm’s length taxpayer to another. General policy against the transfer of losses between taxpayers is but one consideration to be taken into account in determining Parliament’s intent with respect to subsection 18(13) and section 96. To allow a new arm’s length partner to buy into the transferee partnership and to benefit from the loss would violate the fundamental premise underlying subsection 18(13) that the loss is preserved because it essentially remains in the transferor’s control. Absent a non-arm’s length relationship between the transferor and transferee there is no reason for the provision to apply. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that the series of transactions, on which the appellants rely for the tax benefits they claim, result in abusive tax avoidance when subsection 18(13) and section 96 are interpreted purposively, in the context of the Act as a whole.

How would Shell, Duha or Neuman be decided under the GAAR?

In Shell the SCC stated that, "absent a specific provision to the contrary, (emphasis added) it is not the courts’ role to prevent taxpayers from relying on the sophisticated structure of their transactions, arranged in such a way that the particular provisions of the Act are met, on the basis that it would be inequitable to those taxpayers who have not chosen to structure their transactions that way. This approach had previously been adopted by the SCC in Duha Printers and Neuman. Unless the Act provides otherwise, a taxpayer is entitled to be taxed based on what it actually did, not based on what it could have done, and certainly not based on what a less sophisticated taxpayer might have done."

In Canada Trustco the SCC stated "the Act remains an instrument dominated by explicit provisions dictating specific consequences, inviting a largely textual interpretation. Onto this compendium of detailed stipulations, Parliament has engrafted quite a different sort of provision, the GAAR. This is a broadly drafted provision, intended to negate arrangements that would be permissible under a literal interpretation of other provisions of the Act, on the basis that they amount to abusive tax avoidance. To the extent that the GAAR constitutes a "provision to the contrary" as discussed in Shell, the Duke of Westminster principle and the emphasis on textual interpretation may be attenuated. The Court must to the extent possible contemporaneously give effect to both the GAAR and the other provisions of the Act relevant to a particular transaction."

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
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
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