Canada: Technical Explanation To Canada-U.S. Protocol Released

On July 10, 2008, the U.S. Department of the Treasury released its long awaited Technical Explanation of the Fifth Protocol (the "Protocol"), which protocol will amend the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention (the "Convention"). The Protocol was signed by representatives of Canada and the U.S. on September 21, 2007. We have previously discussed the Protocol in Taxation Law @ Gowlings No. 116, and in Special Bulletins of Canadian Tax @ Gowlings on September 25 and October 10.

The Technical Explanation was prepared in advance of a meeting of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on July 11 at which testimony regarding the Protocol was heard. In connection with the meeting, Canada's Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty issued a press release stating that Canada "supports" the Technical Explanation and is in "agreement" with it, and had an opportunity to both review the Technical Explanation and provide comments thereon. Accordingly, the Technical Explanation should prove to be an important document for interpreting the provisions of the Protocol in the future. However, although many (ourselves included) had hoped that the Technical Explanation would address certain negative implications and uncertain aspects of the Protocol, for the most part it does not address these implications and uncertainties (and, in some cases, raises new issues). Highlighted below are some of the more important issues in this regard.

Although the Protocol has not yet been reported out of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the fact that the July 11 hearing was held does increase the likelihood that the Protocol will pass the Senate and be ratified within the calendar year, which would be consistent with past U.S. practice on ratification. This is an important milestone as many of the milestones, effective dates and deadlines within the Protocol depend on the calendar year of ratification. Canada has already ratified the Protocol.

In addition to the Technical Explanation, the U.S. House-Senate Joint Committee on Taxation released on July 8 its own Explanation of the Convention (the "JC Explanation"). The JC Explanation goes into more depth about aspects of the Convention concerning hybrid entities, aspects that will be of concern to many who invest in Canada from or through the U.S.

Application of Reduced Withholding Rates

The Protocol provides for amendments to Article XI of the Convention reducing the maximum rates of withholding tax which may be applied to interest. For interest received from a related party, the maximum rates are to decline over a period of three years, but the language in the Protocol had originally been somewhat unclear as to when the reduced rates would apply.

The Technical Explanation clarifies that withholding rate reductions for related party interest "will likely apply retroactively" after ratification; that is, provided that the Protocol is ratified in 2008, related party interest paid at any time during 2008 will be subject to a maximum withholding rate of 7 percent, related party interest paid during 2009 will be subject to a maximum withholding rate of 4 percent, and related party interest paid thereafter will not be subject to withholding.

For interest received from an unrelated party the Protocol eliminates withholding tax immediately upon ratification. This provision is of particular interest to Canadian banks or other entities that do not qualify for a "portfolio exemption" in the United States. Similarly to related party interest, the Technical Explanation clarifies that the withholding tax exemption for unrelated party interest "will likely apply retroactively" after ratification; that is, provided that the Protocol is ratified in 2008, unrelated party interest paid at any time during 2008 will not be subject to withholding tax.

Although we have not yet received any indication from the Department of Finance or the Canada Revenue Agency as to how to account for withholding on interest where the withholding tax rate is reduced or eliminated retroactively, we remain hopeful that relief will be made available to taxpayers who withheld (or whose interest was withheld) at a rate greater than the effective rate after the retroactive provision comes into effect.

Taxation of Hybrid Entities

The Protocol provides for amendments to Article IV of the Convention that will deny treaty benefits to the recipients of certain kinds of payments from "hybrid" entities. These are entities, for example, that are treated as fiscally transparent under the tax laws of the recipient's State but which are not treated as fiscally transparent under the tax laws of the State in which the hybrid entity is resident.

The Technical Explanation confirms certain elements of the scope of the Protocol's changes to Article IV to certain quite common cross-border corporate structures that most international tax practitioners had considered "benign". For example, it confirms that new paragraph IV(7)(b) will apply (and deny treaty protection) to dividends, interest payments and royalty payments made by a Canadian entity to a U.S. shareholder if the Canadian entity is a corporation for Canadian purposes but a disregarded entity for U.S. purposes. A typical example would be a Canadian unlimited liability company or corporation (more on this below). Similarly, the Technical Explanation confirms that paragraph IV(7)(b) will apply to such payments made to a Canadian entity by a U.S. limited partnership that has elected to be treated as a corporation for U.S. tax purposes.

However, the Technical Explanation unfortunately does not address the question of whether new paragraph IV(7)(b) will apply to deny treaty protection to interest or royalty payments made by a Canadian corporation that is considered by U.S. law to be a partnership. The Technical Explanation is clear that a dividend in such circumstances would be caught by paragraph IV(7)(b), but makes no mention of interest or royalty payments. This silence is likely due to such a payment being an issue only for Canadian tax purposes (characterization of the payment for U.S. purposes is apparently unproblematic). The uncertainty of the application of the provision in this case will make the withholding tax obligations of Canadian payors unclear and further clarification on this issue would be helpful.

As alluded to above, the Technical Explanation is silent on perhaps the most important issue facing those who have invested in Canada through the U.S. using hybrid entities - the application of the provisions of the Protocol to non-abusive structures using Canadian unlimited liability companies or corporations ("ULCs"). In private discussions, public statements and the Technical Explanation, both the Department of Finance and the Treasury Department have identified hybrid structures that they consider to be abusive. However, in the JC Explanation, the Joint Committee acknowledges that not all hybrid structures are abusive:

As a general matter, it is a legitimate objective for Canada and the United States, separately or jointly, to attack these or other types of structures that give rise to double deductions (or to single deductions with no income offsets). Commentators have noted, however, that many U.S. companies utilize Canadian ULCs to structure their Canadian investments and businesses, without engaging in such potentially abusive transactions, for a variety of legitimate reasons... The Committee may wish to inquire whether a rule might have been negotiated in lieu of subparagraph 7(b) that would have more narrowly targeted abusive cross-border structures while at the same time causing less disturbance to nonabusive structures.

We note that although such an issue was not raised in the Senate Committee hearings on the Convention, the Committee did leave the record open for further questions and hopefully such questions will be put before the Treasury officials called as witnesses prior to ratification. This recognition by the Joint Committee that there are non-abusive structures using hybrids may also assist in navigating the domestic "treaty-shopping" rules of each jurisdiction in any possible restructuring of hybrid structures.

It is likely that the new anti-hybrid rules in the Protocol will take effect on January 1, 2010. It is probably trite to state that rather than have to restructure cross-border investments, most taxpayers would far prefer to see Canada and the U.S. renegotiate certain aspects of these rules prior to that effective date. However, there is no indication in either the Technical Explanation or the JC Explanation that such a renegotiation is expected or likely.

Limitation of Benefits

As noted in our prior discussions of the Protocol, the Protocol also amends Article XXIX(A) of the Convention to introduce reciprocal limitation of benefits provisions designed to address so-called "treaty shopping" by limiting treaty benefits to residents of Canada or the U.S. that satisfy specified requirements. In general terms, these provisions require that residents satisfy a "qualifying person" test, an "active business test," or a "derivative benefits" test to obtain treaty benefits. The Technical Explanation clarifies certain elements of these tests. We anticipate that compliance with the limitation of benefits rules, and in particular the so-called "look-through rules", will impose significant administrative costs on taxpayers and require corporations to know significantly more about their shareholders and exercise greater control over share transfers and other changes in the composition of their owners. The Technical Explanation does not address the administrative and compliance challenges created by the limitation of benefits rules.

Qualifying Person Test. The Protocol identifies five situations in which a resident of Canada or the U.S. will be a "qualifying person." These include (i) a company if the principal class of shares or units (and any disproportionate class of shares or units) is "primarily and regularly" traded on one or more recognized stock exchanges (the "public company requirement"); and (ii) a company if 50% or more of the aggregate vote and value of its shares and 50% or more of the aggregate vote and value of each class of its disproportionate shares is not owned directly or indirectly by non-qualifying persons, subject to limitations on expenses paid directly or indirectly to non-qualifying persons under a "base erosion" requirement.

The Technical Explanation confirms that the phrases "primarily traded" and "regularly traded" are to have the meanings such terms have under U.S. law until Canada adopts its own meanings for such phrases. The Technical Explanation also confirms that under U.S. law, if more shares of the principal class of shares - generally, ordinary or common shares - are traded on a recognized stock exchange than on other securities markets during the year, the shares will be "primarily traded" on a recognized stock exchange. Furthermore, the Technical Explanation explains that under U.S. law, shares are regularly traded if trades in the class of shares are made in more than de minimis quantities on at least sixty days during the taxable year and the aggregate number of shares in the class traded during the year is at least 10% of the average number of shares outstanding during the year. The Technical Explanation also clarifies that trading on one or more recognized stock exchanges may be aggregated for purposes of meeting the "regularly traded" requirement.

The Technical Explanation confirms that the company ownership requirement will be satisfied if on at least half the days of the taxable year the specified percentage of shares are not owned, directly or indirectly by non-qualifying persons. The Technical Explanation further confirms that the ownership test will not be satisfied if, for example, a Canadian company is more than 50% owned by a U.S. resident company that is, itself, wholly owned by a third country resident because the third country resident will not be a "qualifying person." The Technical Explanation does state that Canada and the U.S. will view the ownership requirement to be satisfied if at least 50% of a U.S. or Canadian company is owned, directly or indirectly, by a second company or trust that satisfies the public company requirements. The Technical Explanation also confirms that in analyzing whether the ownership and base erosion requirements have been satisfied, one must look through entities in the chain of ownership that are viewed as fiscally transparent in the person's country of residence (other than entities that are resident in the source country).

Active Business Test. If a resident of one state is not a "qualifying person," the Protocol extends treaty benefits to the resident if the resident, or a person "related" to the resident, is engaged in the active conduct of a "trade or business" (other than certain investment businesses) in the residence state with respect to income derived by the resident from the other state "in connection with" or "incidental to" that trade or business (including any such income derived directly or indirectly through one or more residents of the other state), but only if the trade or business carried on in the residence state is "substantial" in relation to the activity carried on in the other state giving rise to the income in respect of which the treaty benefits are claimed.

The Technical Explanation clarifies that the determination of whether persons are "related" is to be made under the local laws of the U.S. or Canada, as applicable. The Technical Explanation also confirms that income derived "in connection with" a resident's trade or business includes income from business activities that are "upstream," "downstream," or "parallel" to the activity conducted in the other country. The Technical Explanation further clarifies that income is considered "incidental" to a trade or business if, for example, it arises from the short-term investment of working capital of the resident in securities issued by persons in the source country. The Technical Explanation also confirms that an item of income may be considered to be earned in connection with or to be incidental to an active trade or business in one of the treaty countries even though the resident claiming the benefits derives that income directly or indirectly through one or more persons that are residents of the other treaty country. For example, the Technical Explanation states that a Canadian resident could claim benefits with respect to an item of income earned by a U.S. operating subsidiary, but derived by the Canadian resident through a wholly owned U.S. holding company interposed between it and the operating subsidiary. Another example addresses a Canadian partnership, wholly-owned in equal parts by three unrelated Canadian companies, that forms a wholly-owned U.S. holding company with a U.S. operating subsidiary. In this example, the Technical Explanation states that the Canadian partners may claim treaty benefits with respect to income derived through the U.S. holding company, even if the partners were not considered related to the U.S. holding company under U.S. law.

The Technical Explanation also confirms that the substantial activity requirement is intended to counter treaty-shopping abuses in which a company resident in one country attempts to qualify for benefits by engaging in de minimis connected business activities in the treaty country in which it is resident. The Technical Explanation clarifies that the substantial activity requirement does not require that the trade or business in the residence country be as large, in terms of income, assets or similar measures, as the income-producing activity in the source country but must not represent only a small percentage of the activity in the source country.

Derivative Benefits Test. The Protocol also employs a "derivative benefits" provision that is intended to allow a resident company to claim treaty benefits with respect to dividend, interest and royalty income if the company's owners would have been entitled to the same benefits in respect of the income had the owners derived the income directly, subject to limitations on expenses paid to non-qualifying persons under a base erosion test. The Technical Explanation confirms that in analyzing whether the base erosion requirement has been satisfied under the derivative benefits test, one looks through entities in the chain of ownership that are viewed as fiscally transparent in the person's country of residence (other than entities that are resident in the source country).

General Anti-abuse Provisions. The Protocol contains an anti-abuse rule that the limitation of benefits provisions will not be construed as restricting the ability of Canada or the United States to deny benefits under the Convention in any case in which it can reasonably be concluded that to do otherwise would result in an abuse of the Convention's provisions. The Technical Explanation clarifies that this provision permits a treaty country to rely on general anti-abuse rules to counter arrangements involving treaty shopping through the other treaty country.


As noted above, the Technical Explanation, as well as the JC Explanation, provide some further guidance in respect of issues raised by the Protocol. However, there are still many unanswered questions, including what, if anything, will be done by the two States to address the impact of the Protocol on "non-abusive structures", or what taxpayers and tax practitioners can do in this regard.

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.

Events from this Firm
8 Nov 2016, Seminar, Ottawa, Canada

The prospect of an internal investigation raises many thorny issues. This presentation will canvass some of the potential triggering events, and discuss how to structure an investigation, retain forensic assistance and manage the inevitable ethical issues that will arise.

22 Nov 2016, Seminar, Ottawa, Canada

From the boardroom to the shop floor, effective organizations recognize the value of having a diverse workplace. This presentation will explore effective strategies to promote diversity, defeat bias and encourage a broader community outlook.

7 Dec 2016, Seminar, Ottawa, Canada

Staying local but going global presents its challenges. Gowling WLG lawyers offer an international roundtable on doing business in the U.K., France, Germany, China and Russia. This three-hour session will videoconference in lawyers from around the world to discuss business and intellectual property hurdles.

In association with
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.