Canada: Paragraph 247(2)(b) Demystified

Tucked away in the deep recesses of the Income Tax Act (the ‘‘Act’’), 2 obscured by the long shadows cast by the neighbouring general anti-avoidance rule in section 245 of the Act (the ‘‘GAAR’’), is paragraph 247(2)(b), 3 an arcane recharacterization rule whose genesis, purpose and ambit are shrouded in mystery. The purpose of this article is to demystify paragraph 247(2)(b) and thereby (hopefully) provide some much needed guidance to practitioners and the Canada Revenue Agency (the ‘‘CRA’’) alike in terms of that provision’s intended application.

The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations were extensively revised in 1995 (the ‘‘Revised Guidelines’’). The Revised Guidelines provide that, in exceptional circumstances, it is permissible for tax administrators to recharacterize or reconstitute transactions themselves, rather than merely adjust the terms of such transactions:

In other than exceptional cases, the tax administration should not disregard the actual transactions or substitute transactions for them . . . However, there are two particular circumstances in which it may, exceptionally, be both appropriate and legitimate for a tax administration to consider disregarding the structure adopted by a taxpayer in entering into a controlled transaction. 4

These statements in the Revised Guidelines served as the Department of Finance’s ‘‘authority’’ for enacting the recharacterization rule in paragraph 247(2)(b). In other words, but for these statements, paragraph 247(2)(b) would not have been enacted. Accordingly, paragraph 247(2)(b) is not intended to apply in circumstances other than those identified in the Revised Guidelines. 5

As noted, the Revised Guidelines set forth two circumstances where expenses it is permissible for tax authorities to proceed in this exceptional manner.

The first circumstance is where the form of the transaction belies its substance. The example provided in the Revised Guidelines is the making of a loan by a taxpayer a non-arm’s length person, where, having regard to the economic situation of the borrower, the investment appears to be an economic substitute for share capital. The Revised Guidelines are thus alluding to a thin capitalization type situation. 6 Another example of this first circumstance (albeit outside of the transfer pricing context) is provided by the Imperial Oil case. 7 In that case, the taxpayer lent money to a non-bank subsidiary of a bank, on the strength of the bank’s loan guarantee. The taxpayer lent the money in this manner, rather than directly to the bank, because a loan to a bank would not have given rise to an investment allowance for capital tax purposes. Therefore, while the transaction’s legal form was a loan to a subsidiary of a bank, its economic substance was, arguably, a loan to a bank.

The Department of Finance and the CRA considered whether the new transfer pricing rules should apply to these types of transactions, i.e., transactions where the form belies the substance, and concluded that they should not, as such transactions were more appropriately dealt with by specific anti-avoidance rules or the GAAR. In arriving at this conclusion, consideration was given to the relationship between transfer pricing rules, on the one between hand, and specific anti-avoidance rules and the GAAR, on the other hand. It was determined that transfer pricing rules were not intended to bolster or supplement specific anti-avoidance rules, 8 since this would create uncertainty as to the application of those rules and would effectively permit the CRA to bypass or supplant the protections afforded taxpayers by subsection 245(4). More specifically, it was felt that the types of transactions described by the first circumstance should not be recharacterized, unless they constituted a misuse of the provisions of the Act or an abuse of the Act when read as a whole within the meaning of subsection 245(4) (the ‘‘misuse or abuse’’ tests). 9 Indeed, to apply the transfer pricing rules in this ‘‘substance versus form’’ context would usurp the role of the GAAR and render subsection 245(4) virtually meaningless in those situations (but only those situations) where the transaction or series involves a non-arm’s length non-resident. Plainly, this was not the result sought by Finance in enacting paragraph 247(2)(b).

That paragraph 247(2)(b) is not intended to apply in this context is confirmed by the wording of the provision itself, which, as explained more fully below, does not seek to ascertain if a particular transaction or series is a substitute for a different, arm’s length transaction or series, but rather whether the particular transaction or series has no such arm’s length substitutes. That wording is as follows:10

(b) the transaction or series

(i) would not have been entered into between persons dealing at arm’s length . .

Consequently, transactions contemplated by the first circumstance are not intended to come within the ambit of paragraph 247(2)(b). This means, for example, that, even if the Act did not contain any thin capitalization rules, paragraph 247(2)(b) would not serve as a basis to recharacterize loans made by non-arm’s length non-residents to resident corporations or trusts.

The second circumstance contemplated in the Revised Guidelines has two components. Firstly, the transaction must be one that, when viewed as a whole, would not have been one that would have been entered into by independent enterprises behaving in a commercially rational manner. In other words, the transaction must be one that is manifestly contrary to the commercial interests of the tested party. Secondly, the transaction must have been structured in this commercially irrational manner in order to impede the tax authorities’ ability to determine an arm’s length price under ‘‘normal’’ transfer pricing rules or to achieve some other tax benefit for the tested party. The application of normal transfer pricing rules is impeded because there are no arm’s length comparables upon which to base a transfer pricing assessment.11

The two-part test in paragraph 247(2)(b) is intended to parallel the above-described two-part test in the Revised Guidelines.12

The example given in the Revised Guidelines is that of the current sale by a taxpayer for a lump sum amount of all future intellectual property (in contradistinction to existing intellectual property) developed by the taxpayer in a subsequent period. This same example is discussed at paragraphs 150 and 151 of Information Circular 87-2R, which deals with international transfer pricing:

150. As outlined in paragraph 43 of this circular, the Department generally accepts business transactions as they are structured by the parties. However, the OECD Guidelines identify two types of situations where the recharacterization of a transaction would be considered. One situation identified by the OECD is a sale under a long-term contract, for a lump-sum payment, of unlimited entitlement to intangible property arising as result of future research.

151. The Department will review any long-term agreements between non-arm’s length parties for the right to use intangibles to ensure that they are consistent with the arm’s length principle. Paragraph 247(2)(b) provides for an adjustment where the Department determines that:

  • a long-term sale of intangible property would not have been entered into between persons dealing at arm’s length; and
  • the sale was not entered into primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain a tax benefit.

For example, it may be appropriate in such a situation for the Department to modify the amounts for purposes of the Act on the basis of an alternative transaction whose form, nature, terms, and conditions correspond to what arm’s length parties would have agreed to — to reflect an ongoing research agreement.

The specific reason this particular transaction may be recharacterized is touched on at paragraph 1.10 of the Revised Guidelines: ‘‘For example, an independent enterprise may not be willing to sell an intangible (e.g. the right to exploit the fruits of all future research) for a fixed price if the profit potential of the intangible cannot be adequately estimated and there are other means of exploiting the intangible’’. More specifically, absent parameters as to (i) the type of research to be conducted, (ii) the nature of the technology expected to result from the research, and (iii) the potential market for such technology, it is virtually impossible to set a price for the future technology currently agreed to be sold. Therefore, absent the above-listed circum parameters, this may be an irrational transaction in which arm’s length parties, in particular the transferor, would not participate. Conversely, if those parameters are present, the transaction should not be recharacterized, as it would be possible to adequately or rationally estimate the future technology’s profit potential.

Both the Information Circular and the Revised Guidelines state that, if recharacterization of this transaction is appropriate, then it may be appropriate to treat the transaction as a continuing or ongoing research agreement. The Revised Guidelines shed some light on what this means by noting that, notwithstanding such recharacterization, it may be proper to respect the transaction as a transfer of commercial property. 13 If the transfer of (rights to such future) property is to be respected, but it is not rational to set a fixed price therefor currently, absent the parameters listed above, then it follows that arm’s length parties would probably have agreed to the payment of a royalty by the transferee based on future revenues generated by the transferee from the resulting future property’s exploitation.

The Department of Finance and the CRA considered how the GAAR’s misuse or abuse tests would apply to this particular transaction. They concluded that the misuse test was probably irrelevant, since no specific provision of the Act was being misused. Although the abuse test was thought to be relevant, it probably did not apply either, since, based on the Stubart case, 14 the Act did not contain a general scheme against tax-motivated transactions. 15 Neither could it be said that the Act contained a general scheme against commercially irrational transactions. 16 Nevertheless, it was decided that, as a matter of tax policy, the CRA should not need to rely on the GAAR in this case, as it should be able to recharacterize such a transaction, if structured in this manner to specifically thwart the application of the normal transfer pricing rules. 17 Accordingly, it is this type of transaction, and only this type of transaction, that is intended to come within the ambit of paragraph 247(2)(b).

The specific purpose of paragraph 247(2)(b), therefore, is to ensure that the revised Canadian transfer pricing rules in section 247 of the Act can be applied in an effective manner to irrational transactions for which no arm’s length comparables exist, where the particular form of the transaction was selected by the parties to thwart the effective application of such rules to the tested party. While it was felt that the ‘‘primary’’ transfer pricing rule in paragraph if 247(2)(a) could, in theory, apply in those types of situations, it was recognized that the resulting adjustments would be too arbitrary to serve as the basis for a transfer pricing assessment, and that such an approach would effectively be playing into the hands of the taxpayer. That being said, it was also recognized that the recharacterization of a real transaction into a notional arm’s length transaction would lead to equally arbitrary results, and thus that it would be improper to use the recharacterization power in stances other than the one, exceptional circumstance identified above. This sentiment is evident in paragraphs 43 and 44 of the Information Circular:

43. The Department generally accepts business transactions as they are structured by the parties. The fact that a taxpayer has entered into a transaction with a non-arm’s length non-resident party in a form that would not exist between arm’s length parties does not necessarily imply that the transaction is inconsistent with the arm’s length principle. This may reflect the fact that parties not dealing at arm’s length operate under different commercial circumstances than do parties transacting at arm’s length.

44. There are instances where it is necessary to recharacterize a transaction for tax purposes; however, as indicated in the OECD Guidelines, those instances are limited. The OECD Guidelines identify two exceptional situations when the recharacterization of a transaction would be considered (see paragraph 1.37 of the OECD Guidelines). 18

and is echoed in the OECD’s admonition to overzealous tax administrators in this regard:

In other than exceptional cases, the tax administration should not disregard the actual transactions or substitute other transactions for them. Restructuring of legitimate business transactions would be a wholly arbitrary exercise the inequity of which could be compounded by double taxation created where the other tax administration does not share the same views as to how the transaction should be structured. 19

Hopefully, the Transfer Pricing Review Committee, which is the CRA body entrusted with ensuring the fair and consistent application of paragraph 247(2)(b) and the body to which all proposed assessments under this provision must be referred, will heed these cautionary words.


1 Although the author was a member of the Tax Legislation Division of the Department of Finance at the time the new Canadian transfer pricing rules were formulated, the views expressed in this article are entirely his own and may or may not represent the views of the Department of Finance or the Canada Revenue Agency on the matters discussed. The author would like to thank Nathan Boidman for his valuable suggestions, but is solely responsible for any errors that may have crept into this article despite the author’s best efforts.

2 R.S.C. 1985 (5th supp.), c. 1.

3 The relevant portion of subsection 247(2) is as follows:

‘‘Where a taxpayer (. . .) and a non-resident person with whom the taxpayer (. . .) does not deal at arm’s length are participants in a transaction or a series of transactions and (. . .)

(b) the transaction or series

  1. would not have been entered into between persons dealing at arm’s length, and
  2. can reasonably be considered not to have been entered into primarily for bone fide purposes other than to obtain a tax benefit,

any amounts that, but for this section and section 245, would be determined for the purposes of this Act in respect of the taxpayer (. . .) for a taxation year (. . .) shall be adjusted (in this section referred to as an ‘‘adjustment’’) to the quantum or nature of the amounts that would have been determined if, (. . .)

(d) where paragraph (b) applies, the transaction or series entered into between the participants had been the transaction or series that< would have been entered into between persons dealing at arm’s length, under terms and conditions that would have been made between persons dealing at arm’s length’’.

4 OECD, Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations, OECD, 1995, at paragraphs 1.36 and 1.37.

5 Indeed, the explicit use of the arm’s length principle in subsection 247(2), the penalty provision in subsection 247(3) and the documentation requirements in subsection 247(4) were all things that Finance believed were ‘‘authorized’’ by the Revised Guidelines.

6 One can infer from the Revised Guidelines that where thin capitalization rules exist, they would apply to the exclusion of any recharacterization rules.

7 Her Majesty the Queen v. Imperial Oil Limited, 2004 DTC 6044.

8 See paragraph 21 of Information Circular 87-2R in this regard.

9 Paragraph 20 of Information Circular 87-2R states the following: ‘‘20. In addition to affecting the cross-border movement of property and services, section 247 could be applied to financial transactions. In theory, section 247 could be applied to a wide variety of arrangements resulting in foreign accrual property income to Canadian shareholders. In general, the Department considers that subsection 247(2) does not change the existing law as it relates to intercorporate debt and equity investments. The Department will usually use subsection 245(2) if the arrangement is part of an aggressive tax plan or is potentially abusive (e.g. loss importation), but could also use subsection 247(2) to challenge such an arrangement.’’ (my emphasis)

In my view, the reference to subsection 247(2) at the end of this paragraph is boilerplate.

10 See footnote 12 infra for a discussion of the ‘‘tax benefit’’ language in subparagraph 247(2)(b)(ii).

11 Note that there is an important distinction to be made between, on the one hand, transactions that are commercially irrational and, on the other hand, transactions that are commercially rational but high-risk. For example, arm’s length parties routinely make unsecured loans to thinly capitalized companies, as attested to by the existence of so-called junk bonds. The second circumstance is not intended to capture transactions that, from the point of view of arm’s length parties, are merely high-risk.

12 When first released on September 11, 1997, paragraph 247(2)(b) did not explicitly contain the wording now found in subparagraph (ii) thereof (the ‘‘tax benefit’’ test). This was because Finance initially thought that the tax benefit test was implicit in the language now contained in subparagraph (i). However, in meetings with taxpayer representatives, the point was made, with some force, that multinationals enter into all manner of transactions that have no arm’s length comparables and that a tax benefit test was needed to winnow out the ones that were acceptable from a tax policy point of view from the ones that were not. Finance agreed and paragraph 247(2)(b) was re-drafted accordingly. See, in this regard, paragraph 43 of Information Circular 87-2R and footnote 16 infra. Note that the effective circumvention of the normal transfer pricing rules in paragraph 247(2)(a) was the only ‘‘tax benefit’’ identified by Finance and CRA at the time the new transfer pricing rules were introduced.

13 OECD, Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations, OECD, 1995, at paragraph 1.37.

14 Stubart Investments Ltd. v. The Queen, 84 DTC 6305.

15 Different from the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. R., 2005 DTC 5523, Finance approached the misuse or abuse tests in subsection 245(4) on the assumption that they were two distinct tests. A detailed discussion of subsection 245(4) is beyond the scope of this article.

16 As described in Interpretation Bulletin IT-96R6, dated October 23, 1996, the CRA employs a commercial rationality standard when assessing the appropriateness of applying section 69 of the Act (in contradistinction to section 245 of the Act) to a disposition of securities pursuant to the exercise of a call option granted to a non-arm’s length person:

‘‘Anti-avoidance provisions

17. When a taxpayer grants an option to a person with whom it does not deal at arm’s length on capital account to acquire securities of another entity, section 69 may be applied to the disposition of the securities if the price of the option and the exercise price are materially less than the fair market value of the securities otherwise determined at the time of the exercise of the option. The application of section 69 will most often apply when the taxpayer has granted a non-arm’s length "non-commercial option." A "non commercial option’’ is one into which arm’s length parties would not consider entering. For example, this type of option may involve an unrealistically long option period, a low option price, or an exercise does not fully recognize expected future events (e.g., inflation, zoning change, market trends) that affect the value of assets owned by the corporation whose securities are being optioned and thus which affect the price of the optioned securities over the option period.’’ (my emphasis)

Significantly, the CRA does not seek to apply the GAAR in these (perceived) non-commercial circumstances. The CRA’s explanation of the changes made to the prior version of paragraph 17 (viz., former paragraph 11) of the Interpretation Bulletin states that this paragraph was specifically revised to reflect the CRA’s (new) position that section 69, rather than subsection 245(2), is the relevant provision in the circumstances. Note also the similarity between the CRA’s administrative commercial rationality standard, as emphasized above, and the wording of subparagraph 247(2)(b)(i).

17 Whether or not the sham doctrine could be successfully invoked by the CRA in these circumstances would depend on whether the parties’ course of conduct corresponded with their contractual arrangements. See footnote 14 in this regard.

18 M.N.R., Information Circular 87-2R, ‘‘International Transfer Pricing’’ (September 27, 1999) at paragraphs 43 and 44.

19 OECD, Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax ‘‘Guides’’ Administrations, OECD, 1995, at paragraph 1.36.

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.