the general anti-avoidance rule - canadian bar … general anti-avoidance rule tax law for lawyers...
TRANSCRIPT
The General Anti-Avoidance Rule
Tax Law for LawyersJune 1, 2011
Ed Kroft Q.C.Ian MacGregor, Q.C.Deen OlsenEd Harris Q.C.
#50760605 2
Introduction
Almost 24 years since GAAR was announced (June 1987 Tax Reform) and almost 23 years since enactment (September 1988)Landmark decision of SCC in Canada Trustcoand Kaulius on October 19, 2005SCC decided Lipson case in January 2009SCC heard Copthorne case on January 21, 2010
#50760605 3
Introduction (cont’d)
A number of lower court decisions have emerged in the last 5 yearsDesmarais, Overs, McMullen, CECO, MacKay, Evans, Copthorne, Univar Canada, MIL Investments, Collins & Aikman, Lehigh Cement, Remai, Garron, Antle, LandrusProvincial GAAR assessment being raised (OGT Holdings, Kebet Holdings, and Husky Energy)
#50760605 4
The Current CRA Environment
Tax avoidance = “aggressive tax planning”Aggressive international tax planning initiatives (AITP)Challenges to international transactionsCollaboration in CRA seems to have increased with the reorganization (ILBD)
#50760605 5
The Current CRA Environment (cont’d)
Use of specific anti-avoidance rules (95(6)), 103, 237.1, 84.1, 69(4), 247)
Univar Canada, Aventis, Lehigh Cement (95(6))Baxter (237.1)Penn West, Lebow, Stow (103)Husky (87(4) and 69(4))Emory (84.1)
#50760605 6
The Current GAAR Landscape
Cases at Tax Court of Canada level at various stagesAudit activity on various projects which involve the application of provincial GAAR legislationRulings still being provided on GAAR
#50760605 7
Focus of the Presentation
How have the courts interpreted the GAAR?Where might the jurisprudence be tending?What type of transactions are before the courts?What types of transactions are being challenged at the audit level?Some predictions about GAAR in tax practice
#50760605 8
GAAR Statistics March 2011
GAAR Statistics as of March 31, 2011
Issue Y N N/A Total %Foreign Tax Credit 13 3 2 18 2%Income Splitting 8 3 1 12 1%Partnership Issues 16 6 3 25 2%Kiddie Tax 75 6 8 89 8%Offshore Trusts 14 1 2 17 1%Cross-Border Lease 11 0 0 11 1%Part XIII Tax 3 9 5 17 1%Losses, Rental 11 2 0 13 1%Kiwi Loan 14 0 0 14 1%Losses, Stop Loss 10 5 5 20 2%Charitable Donations 14 10 5 29 3%Capital Gain 24 9 10 43 4%Interest Deductibility 18 17 15 50 4%Debt Parking 17 7 3 27 2%Indirect Loan 28 3 5 36 3%Debt Forgiveness 33 10 8 51 4%Losses, Capital & Non-Capital 37 18 14 69 6%Loss creation via stock dividend 64 0 2 66 6%Part I.3 Tax 38 11 7 56 5%Provincial GAAR 0 3 5 8 1%Surplus Strips 123 32 34 189 17%Tower Structure 4 3 3 10 1%Treaty Exemption Claim 5 2 3 10 1%Miscellaneous (see page 2) 109 95 57 261 23%
689 255 197 1141 100%
Cases referred to GAAR committee: 944* see note below
GAAR Applied 689 73%GAAR not applied 255 27%
GAAR as primary position 318 46%GAAR as secondary position 371 54%
* Note: Statistics do not take into account the following: - RRSP Project 1363 files - Barbados Spousal Trust proj 78 filesIn these cases GAAR was applied as a secondary position
- More than 300 files to which the Provincial GAAR was applied
#50760605 9
How Have The Courts Interpreted The GAAR?
Categories of casesCases decided before the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada Trustco and Kaulius (16 cases)The Supreme Court of Canada: Canada Trustcoand KauliusPost-Trustco interpretation by the Tax Court and Federal Court of Appeal (10 cases)Lipson in the Supreme Court of CanadaPost-Lipson cases in the lower courtsCopthorne in the Supreme Court of Canada
#50760605 10
Canada Trustco: Summary of the SCC’s Approach – Basic Principles
To permit application of the GAAR, there must be (a) tax benefit, (b) avoidance transaction and (c) abusive tax avoidanceThe burden is on the taxpayer to refute (a) and (b), and on the Minister to establish (c)
#50760605 11
Canada Trustco: Summary of the SCC’s Approach (cont’d)
If abusive tax avoidance is unclear, the benefit of the doubt goes to the taxpayerThe courts conduct a unified textual, contextual and purposive analysis of the provisions giving rise to the tax benefit
#50760605 12
Canada Trustco Summary of the SCC’s Approach (cont’d)
Whether the transactions were undertaken for a non-tax purpose may be relevant but is by itself insufficient in establishing abusive tax avoidanceThe appellate courts should not interfere with the trial court’s conclusion, absent a palpable and overriding error
#50760605 13
Canada Trustco Summary of the SCC’s Approach (cont’d)
Abusive tax avoidance may be found where:documented relationships and transactions lack a proper basis relative to the object, spirit or purpose of the provisions conferring the benefit, or where they are dissimilar to the transactions contemplated by the provisions
A provision of last resort (Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. The Queen, 2005 SCC 54 at para. 21)
#50760605 14
Subsection 245(3) of the Act
Subsection 245(3) of the Act states:“An avoidance transaction means any transaction
that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit; orthat is part of a series of transactions, which series, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit”
#50760605 15
“Avoidance Transaction” - Canada Trustco
The function of subsection 245(3) was found by the Supreme Court of Canada to be as follows:
“… to remove from the ambit of the GAAR transactions or series of transactions that may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for a non-tax purpose. The majority of tax benefits claimed by taxpayers on their annual returns will be immune from the GAAR as a result of s. 245(3).”
Canada Trustco, supra, paragraph 21
#50760605 16
“Avoidance Transaction” - Canada Trustco
Involves an examination of the relationships between the parties and the relevant transactions leading to an objective assessment of the relative importance of the purposes of the transactionBurden is on the taxpayer to prove these factsA non-tax purpose is broader than a business purpose and may include family or investment purposes
#50760605 17
“Avoidance Transaction” - Canada Trustco
“If at least 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. This is apparent from the wording of s. 245(3). Conversely, if each transaction in a series was carried out primarily for bona fide non-tax purposes, the GAAR cannot be applied to deny a tax benefit”.
Canada Trustco, supra, paragraph 34
#50760605 18
“Avoidance Transaction” – Judicial Consideration
Subsection 245(3) has not been subject to extensive judicial consideration In many appeals to the Tax Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal, the taxpayers have conceded that the transactions at issue were “avoidance transactions” within the meaning of ss. 245(3) of the Act (e.g. Canada Trustco, Kaulius, Lipson)
#50760605 19
Subsection 245(3): Series of Transactions and “Avoidance Transactions”
Canada Trustco (para 23-26) briefly discussed this concept Not clear on faceAgreement with FCA in OSFC (Rothstein, J.) and H.L. concept (Craven, Ramsay) –“Common Law Test”
preordained to produce a given resultnot practical likelihood that the pre-planned events would not take place in order ordained
#50760605 20
Subsection 245(4) of the Act
Subsection 245(4) of the Act states:Subsection (2) applies to a transaction only if it may reasonably be considered that the transaction:
would, if this Act were read without reference to this section, result directly or indirectly in a misuse of the provisions if any one or more of
(i) this Act,(ii) the Income Tax Regulations,(iii) the Income Tax Application Rules,(iv) a tax treaty, or(v) any other enactment that is relevant in computing tax or any other amount payable by or refundable to a person under this Act or in determining any amount that is relevant for the purpose of that computation; or
would result directly or indirectly in an abuse having regard to those provisions, other than this section, read as a whole
#50760605 21
“Abuse” or “Misuse” Issues – Subsection 245(4)
Some issues emerging from the case law:What is abusive?Why do similar cases get decided differently?Who has to prove it?What is the role of economic substance?
#50760605 22
Canada Trustco: “Misuse” or “Abuse” –Subsection 245(4)
The analysis of a misuse and abuse is inseparableSpecific provisions must be interpreted in their legislative contextThe “economic substance” is only relevant where the statutory provisions focus on economic concepts
#50760605 23
Canada Trustco: “Misuse” or “Abuse” –Subsection 245(4)
Whether the transactions were motivated by a non-tax purpose may be relevant but is by itself insufficient to establish abusive tax avoidanceThe Crown has the onus of proving abusive tax avoidance
#50760605 24
Kaulius: Application of Canada Trustco (2005 – SCC)
Appeal of the taxpayer dismissedThe use of the partnership rules by persons who deal at arm’s length with the original vendor would frustrate or defeat the object, spirit or purpose of the statutory preservation of the losses on the transfer to the partnership The provisions of the Act establish a general policy against the transfer or sharing of losses between arm’s-length taxpayers, subject to specific exceptions intended to promote a particular purpose
#50760605 25
GAAR Jurisprudence After Canada Trustco/Kaulius
Lipson (SCC) – 4 to 3 for Crown – abuse of attribution rules; interest expense okMacKay (FCA) – leave to SCC denied –“avoidance transaction”Landrus (FCA) - affiliated loss rules – “bright line” test and GAARRemai (FCA) – charitable donation deductible
#50760605 26
GAAR Jurisprudence After Canada Trustco/Kaulius (cont’d)
Lehigh Cement (FCA) – non-resident withholding tax on sale of stripped coupons – TCC reversed –taxpayer winsCollins & Aikman Products (FCA) – surplus stripping –taxpayer winsGarron (FCA) - Barbados trusts/estate freeze/use of treaty – GAAR not applicable but trusts resident in CanadaAntle (FCA) - capital gains step-up plan using a Barbados Treaty – TCC found GAAR applicable to ignore transfer to Barbados Trust
#50760605 27
The GAAR Scorecard 2005 (Post-Canada Trustco)to May 2011
GAAR APPLIESKaulius (SCC)
Loss TransferDesmarais
Surplus StripLipson (SCC)
Reverse Attribution/Interest CECO (TCC)
Ptshp/Disguised ProceedsOGT Holdings (QCA)
Quebec ShuffleCopthorne (SCC under reserve)
Duplication of PUCMacKay (FCA)
- Withholding Tax
GAAR DOES NOT APPLY/NOT NEEDEDCanada Trustco (SCC)
Cost & “Economic Substance”Evans (TCC)
Surplus Strip/Income Splitting Overs (TCC)
Reverse Attribution/InterestMIL (FCA)
Treaty ShoppingUnivar (TCC)
Tiered FinancingMcMullan (TCC)
Capital Gains StripRemai (FCA)
Charitable Donations
#50760605 28
The GAAR Scorecard 2005 (Post-Canada Trustco)to May 2011 (cont’d)
GAAR APPLIESAntle (FCA) (Leave to SCC
Sought) - Capital Gains, Step-Up
Strategy Using Barbados Trust (finding of TCC only)
GAAR DOES NOT APPLY/NOT NEEDEDLandrus (FCA)
Terminal Loss RecognitionCollins & Aikman (FCA)
Surplus StrippingGarron (FCA) (Leave to SCC Sought)
Barbados Trust PlanMaréchaux [GAAR argued – not needed]
(Leave to SCC Sought)Leveraged Donation
Envision [GAAR argued – not needed] (Appealed to FCA)
Broken AmalgamationHusky (Alta QB)
Finco interest shiftLehigh (FCA)
Withholding Tax
#50760605 29
Some Trends in Post-Trustco Case Law
Not meant to fill legislative gaps (Lehigh Cement Limited v. The Queen, 2010 FCA 124 & Collins & Aikman Products Co. v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 299 at para. 109) Overall result of transactions is important (Lipson 2009 SCC 1)
#50760605 30
Some Trends in Post-Trustco Case Law (cont’d)
GAAR does not incorporate an economic substance test (Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. The Queen, 2005 SCC 54 at para. 57 & Lipson v. The Queen, 2009 SCC 1 at para. 38)
#50760605 31
Some Trends in Post-Trustco Case Law (cont’d)
No need for GAAR if transactions don’t workGarron Family Trust (Trustee of) v. The Queen, 2010 FCA 309Maréchaux v. The Queen, 2010 FCA 287 Antle 2010 FCA 280
#50760605 32
Supreme Court of Canada and the GAAR
From Canada Trustco to Lipson and on to Copthorne
Diverging viewsImplications for “certainty, predictability andfairness”
#50760605 33
Shams and GAAR
The sham doctrine: what does it mean?Faraggi c. The Queen, 2008 FCA 398 at para 59
“… the existence of a sham under Canadian law requires an element of deceit which generally manifests itself by a misrepresentation by the parties of the actual transaction taking place between them. When confronted with this situation, courts will consider the real transaction and disregard the one that was represented as being the real one.”
#50760605 34
Shams and GAAR (cont’d)
Antle v. The Queen, 2010 FCA 280 at para. 20
“In so holding, the Tax Court judge misconstrued the notion of intentional deception in the context of a sham. The required intent or state of mind is not equivalent to mens rea and need not go so far as to give rise to what is known at common law as the tort of deceit … It suffices that parties to a transaction present it as being different from what they know it to be. …”
See also, Labow v. The Queen, 2010 TCC 408 (under appeal)
#50760605 35
Copthorne Holdings Ltd. v The Queen, 2009 DTC 5101 aff’d 2009 FCA 163
#50760605 36
NON Resident Corp
CANCOSubject CorporationResident in Canada
Low PUC - Defined in s.89(1)
Low ACB - Defined as cost
High FMV
Deemed Dividend: s.84(3) - subject to withholding tax - ss.212(2)
Capital Gain: Treaty exemption
Copthorne Holdings Ltd. v The Queen, 2009 DTC 5101 aff’d 2009 FCA 163
Cross Border PUC: The Situation
#50760605 37
Copthorne: The Origins
VHHC Holdingsss. 87(3) would eliminate the PUC of VHHC Holdings on any amalgamation with VHHC Investments and Copthorne
Copthorne I VHHC Investments
PUC/ACB=$97 MFMV= $30 M
PUC/ACB= $67 MFMV= $1,000
PUC/ACB=$1FMV=$150 M
Big City LI GROUPRelated Group
#50760605 38
Copthorne: The Start
Big City LI GROUP
Copthorne I VHHC Investments
VHHC Holdings
PUC/ACB=$1FMV=$150 M
PUC/ACB=$97 MFMV= $30 M
PUC=$67 MACB=$1,000FMV=$1,000
s. 87(3) would eliminate the PUC of VHHC Holdings on any amalgamation with Copthorne-vertical amalgamation
#50760605 39
The Avoidance Transaction: The Share Sale
BIG CITY LI GROUP
PUC=$1ACB=$1FMV=$150 M
PUC=$97 MACB=$97 MFMV=$1,000
Copthorne I VHHC Investments
VHHC Holdings
PUC=$67 MACB=$1,000FMV=$1,000
Related Group
#50760605 40
First Amalgamation: Copthorne I and VHHC Holdings
Big City LI GROUP
Copthorne II VHHC Investments
PUC=$67 MACB=$1,000FMV=$150 M
PUC=$97 MACB=$97 MFMV=$30 M
ss. 87(3) does not eliminate PUC of VHHC Holdings on a horizontal amalgamation
#50760605 41
Second Amalgamation - Copthorne III
PUC=$164 M (97 +67)ACB=$97 MFMV=$180 M (30 +150)
LI INVESTMENTS
Copthorne III
#50760605 42
LI INVESTMENTS
COPTHORNE III
PUC=$164 MACB=$97 MFMV=$180 M
Capital gain on the Redemption is Treaty Protected, no tax in Netherlands
Redemption at 150 M-FMV of Copthorne I
MNR applies GAAR to “subtract” duplicated PUC of 67 M down to PUC of 97 M-Withholding Tax
#50760605 43
Tax Court
The series of transactions undertaken resulted in a misuse of the provisions of ss. 89(1), 84(3), and 87(3)(a) of the Act, in that they were used to artificially increase PUC on an amalgamation with the subsequent return of this increase to the shareholder on a tax-free basis, the very result that the provisions were intended to prevent.When the many transactions were “distilled down to the essential core”, it is clearly an abuse of the Act to which section 245 should apply.
#50760605 44
Federal Court of Appeal
When the entire series of transactions is considered, it was apparent that the underlying principles respecting the calculation of PUC were offended. The court focused on the appellant’s abuse of the provisions relating to amalgamations: the computation of the PUC of the shares of Copthorne II (formed as a result of the amalgamation of Copthorne I and VHHC Holdings) and of the shares of Copthorne III (formed as a result of the amalgamation of Copthorne II and VHHC Investments).
#50760605 45
Federal Court of Appeal (cont’d)
The purpose of the requirement that the PUC of inter-corporate shareholdings be extinguished on an amalgamation is to avoid duplicative increases in computing the PUC of the amalgamated corporation. This requirement had been circumvented in an abusive manner
#50760605 46
Copthorne - SCC
Leave to appeal to the SCC has been granted with costs (per McLachlin, C.J., Abella J. and Rothstein J.)As per the SCC Case Summary, the issues under appeal are:
applicability of GAAR to deny a tax benefitconflicting trends in the case law arising from a misinterpretation of the SCC’s statements in Canada Trustco regarding the concept of “series of transactions” as defined in s. 248(10) of the Act
#50760605 47
Copthorne – SCC (cont’d)
interaction of the GAAR with other statutory schemesexamination of the FCA decision:
does the decision create considerable uncertainty for amalgamations and paid-up capital?did the FCA misdirect itself and err?
The hearing was on January 21/11Will the Crown lose because it could not clearly point to why the series was abusive?
#50760605 48
GAAR Court Decisions Pending
Triad Gestco Ltd. – TCC (April 23/10) – value shift/capital loss1207192 Ontario Limited – TCC (December 1/10) – value shift/capital lossGlobal Equity Fund – TCC (January 17/11) –value shift/capital loss
#50760605 49
GAAR Cases in Tax Court Process
Kossow – leveraged donations – trial in progress – began April 26/11Edwards – leveraged donations – discovery processDynacast Canada – denial of section 113(1) deduction – settled October 22/10Future Electronic – denial of 20(12) and 126 FTC – settled March 1/11McClarty Trust - kiddie tax avoidance –scheduled for June 15/11
#50760605 50
GAAR Cases in Tax Court Process cont’d
Rodan Energy – section 80 abuse? Consent to Judgment – December 1/10Lehigh Cement – second tier financing –GAAR dropped – 95(6) issueSpruce Credit Union – alleged abuse ofintercorporate dividend deduction and “double” deduction of deposit insurance premiums (trial scheduled for June 14 - 16/11)
#50760605 51
GAAR Cases in Tax Court Process (cont’d)
Jobin, Mastronardi, Gendron – section 47 ACB averaging – discovery processSchiesser – RRSP strips – discovery process – case managementSSI Investments – alleged abuse of 97(2) rollover on sale of assets to income trust structure – discovery process
#50760605 52
GAAR Cases in Tax Court Process (cont’d)
Walsh – TCC (was scheduled for May 4 – 7/10 but discontinued) – departure tradeSwirsky – TCC – interest deductibility/reverse attribution – scheduled for June 1/11GTE Venezuela – alleged surplus PUC stripping following sale of foreign holding company to Canadian OPCO – discovery process6024530 Canada Inc. – Brazilian tax sparing –discovery process
#50760605 53
Some GAAR Areas Under Review
Leveraged donationsRRSP stripsTax attributes/value shifts/artificial capital lossesForeign tax credits and foreign accrual tax usageProvincial tax arrangements (Québec trusts, Ontario NRO, Québec year ends)Brazilian tax sparing
#50760605 54
Some GAAR Areas Under Review (cont’d)
Tax deferrals using partnerships88(1)(d) bumps – package and bump transactions“Profitco” transactions - partnership income allocated from a partnership with profit sheltered by deductions/losses of a party who acquires the partnership interest before year end
#50760605 55
Provincial GAAR Assessments
Provincial income tax legislation in each province contains a GAARThe scope of these provisions is quite broad and might be challenged as unconstitutional Two cases have been decided (OGT Holdingsand Husky Energy)OGT was unsuccessful in QCCA
#50760605 56
Husky (Alta Q.B.) – April 2011
#50760605 57
CFS I
#50760605 58
Results for CFS I
Subsidiaries claimed interest expense under ITA 20(1)(c) and ACTAOperations claimed ITA 112(1) deduction for dividendsCentral reported interest income under ITAand OCTA but not taxable under OCTA only ITA 12(1)(c)West reported interest income and deducted interest expense
#50760605 59
CFS II
(8) Payment of Dividend
#50760605 60
Results for CFS II
Operations paid interest to Brae Pacific and deducted under ITA and ACTABrae Pacific had interest expense and interest incomeBrae Finance had interest income but was only liable for tax under ITA 12(1)(c) and not OCTAHusky Energy claimed ITA 112(1) intercorp dividend deduction for dividends paid
#50760605 61
Alberta Reassessments
Denied 112(1) deductions to Husky Energy and OperationsDenied interest expense to Subsidiaries and Operations and treated Operations as having received interest income under CFS I
#50760605 62
Issues
Denial of interest expense to Operations to redeem shares in light of Trans-Prairie decision? (Technical Issue)Does Alberta GAAR override ITA and ACTA so that:
Operations gets tax on interest income under CFS I;Operations and subsidiaries get no interest deduction; and 112(1) dividend deduction is denied
#50760605 63
Decision
Taxpayer winsApproval of “certainty” principle in Shell, Trans-Prairie, SingletonReview of GAAR principles and Lipson
#50760605 64
Decision – Technical Issue
Trans-Prairie complete answer$ used to earn incomeNothing in 20(1)(c) requires an increase in capital
#50760605 65
Decision – GAAR (Abuse Only)
No abuse of 20(1)(c)Not abusive for corporations to reorganize and refinanceNot chained to “Alberta”Lipson and Trustco principles helpSingleton principle of “legal relations” help taxpayer
#50760605 66
Decision – GAAR (abuse only)
No abuse of 112(1)No need for income to be taxed for 112(1) to applyNon-Purpose of 112(1) – to ensure income taxed at least onceNo circumvention of ITA 12(1)(c) by Operations in CFS I
#50760605 67
Decision – GAAR (abuse only) (cont’d)
No recharacterization of interest to dividends in order to apply GAAROK to rely on difference in provincial taxing policyNothing unfair in Husky’s refinancing if fairness is an important measure of abuse (Lipson – LeBel)
#50760605 68
The Future – Predictions About GAAR in Practice
Harder to give opinions and advice?Harder to predict results?More or less GAAR litigation?Prospect of legislative overrides (e.g. March/11)
Amendments to/creation of specific anti-avoidance ruleschanges to GAAR
#50760605 69
Predictions About GAAR in Practice (cont’d)
Pursuit of retail strategies (RRSP strips, Barbados trusts, leveraged donations)More litigation on specific anti-avoidance rulesGAAR just one toolGAAR has two defences – why use it?
Other specific rules have fewer defences (e.g. 247(2)(b), 95(6))
The cases will turn on the facts as well as the law
#50760605 70
Predictions About GAAR in Practice (cont’d)
Documenting why transactions are done is importantImportant to have available personnel to talk about why a transaction was doneConcessions on “avoidance transactions” may not always be appropriate
#50760605 71
Predictions About GAAR in Practice (cont’d)
How will the changing judicial landscape and the composition of the Courts (TCC, FCA, SCC) affect the interpretation of GAAR? What you do now will be litigated years from now when judicial attitudes may have shifted!!