News of Note
When a Canadian corporation (a CRIC) and a (non-resident) “subject corporation” file a late “PLOI” election to have imputed interest accrue on a loan owing to the CRIC by the subject corporation rather than having Part XIII tax apply to the loan amount, CRA will assess the additional imputed interest income for the years for which CRIC returns already have been filed on the basis of the election particulars required at Pertinent loans or indebtedness, rather than expecting the CRIC to file amended returns.
However, if the late election has not yet been filed by the technical triggering of the Part XIII tax, CRA does not consider that it can wait and see if a late election is filed within the three-year period specified in s. 15(2.12), and considers itself obligated to assess the withholding tax – and will reassess if the late election subsequently is filed.
This morning's release of seven severed letters from the Income Tax Rulings Directorate is now available for your viewing.
Draft s. 93.3 deems an LLC “that does not have capital divided into shares” to have one or more classes of shares, and 2014-0522971C6 sets out a methodology for determining the number and attributes of the deemed classes of shares. Barnicke and Huynh suggest that where the LLC agreement has purported to divide the member interests into shares, it is unclear whether taxpayers are required to go through such methodology to potentially arrive at a deemed share structure which might depart from that set out in the agreement.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of Paul Barnicke and Melanie Huynh, "Deemed Shares in a US LLC," Canadian Tax Highlights, Vol. 22, August 2014, p. 8 under s. 93.3.
The Art. IV(7)(b) anti-hybrid rule does not apply to interest paid by a check-the-box Delaware LP on “debt” held by Canadian partners
Reminders and observations of Carderelli and Keenan on the anti-hybrid rules in the Canada-U.S. Treaty include:
- The “two-step” solution to the denial in Art. IV(7)(b) of reduced dividend withholding by a ULC (increase PUC and then distribute it IV(7)(b)) is not recognized by CRA as being effective where the sole shareholder of the ULC is an LLC.
- The accepted solutions to the application of Art. IV(7)(b) to the payment of interest by a ULC on a loan from its U.S. corporate shareholder (USCo) are for: say, 10% of the shares of ULC to be held instead by a U.S. subsidiary of USCo (USSub) with which it files a consolidated return; USCo to hold all of the shares of ULC through USSub but hold the loan to ULC directly; and for the loan to be made by USSub to ULC which is held 100% by USCo.
- The Art. IV(7)(a) rules produces a harsh result for a Canadian pension plan investing in an LLC portfolio investment company given that dividends and interest on a directly held portfolio would have been exempt.
- The uncertainty as to whether the Art. IV(7)(a) rule applies to effectively impose U.S. branch profits tax at a 30% rather than 5% rate on the business profits of an LLC has had a “chilling effect” on Canadian corporations investing in U.S. businesses through an LLC.
- It would appear that Art. IV(7)(b) does not apply to interest paid by a check-the-box Delaware LP on “debt” held by Canadian partners.
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of Corrado Cardarelli and Peter Keenan, “Planning around the Anti-Hybrid Rules in the Canada-US Tax Treaty,” draft paper for the 2013 Conference Report (CTF annual conference) under Treaties –Art. 4.
CRA has revised its GST/HST Memorandum on zero-rating for goods and cognate matters. Added points include:
- The barter rule (deeming nil consideration) in ETA s. 153(6) for provision of “make-up” gas in exchange for natural gas liquids which are consumed at a natural gas straddle plant can apply more than once in the same transaction, for example, where the natural gas owner provides rights to the natural gas to a third party who is obligated to return make-up gas, and the third party is supplied the make-up gas by the straddle plant operator for on-supply to the owner.
- The (not so new) rule in Sched. VI, Pt. V, s. 15.1 permits zero-rating where an unregistered non-resident purchaser in Canada of a “continuous transmission commodity” (e.g., crude oil transported by pipeline) does not actually export the oil but instead delivers it in Canada to a registered Canadian in exchange for the delivery to it of equivalent crude outside Canada.
- Where a Canadian registrant does not charge GST or HST on the supply of a continuous transmission commodity to a registrant who certifies that the commodity will be promptly exported, and that purchaser does not do so (or do a swap as described immediately above), the vendor generally will have no liability – and the purchaser instead will be subject to an imputed interest charge under s. 236.1 “which reflects the cash flow benefit obtained by [it]” (plus the avoided GST or HST itself if it did not acquire the commodity exclusively in the course of commercial activities).
If an individual disposes of his shares of Opco at a loss to his personal Holdco and Opco then is wound-up into Holdco within 30 days (but articles of dissolution are not filed until beyond the 30-day period), will his capital loss be denied under the superficial loss rule?
CRA indicated that first one must assess whether his shares of Holdco are substituted property for (i.e., identical property to) his shares of Opco, and quoted IT-387R2 to the effect that this would be the case if a prospective purchaser would be equally happy with either. (The Bulletin deserves its archiving. Securities of different persons are not identical.)
If the Holdco shares were not substituted property, then the Opco shares would be considered to be disposed of within the 30-day period if the IT-126R2 criteria were satisfied (e.g., “there is substantial evidence that the corporation will be dissolved within a short period of time.”)
There was insufficient information for a GAAR analysis. (CRA would not like the recognition of the loss notwithstanding that Opco effectively continued as Holdco.)
Bekesinski – Tax Court of Canada finds that a director who likely backdated his resignation should prevail – in part, because the Crown did not plead the backdating
Campbell J granted the taxpayer’s appeal from a director’s liability assessment under s. 227.1 on the basis that he had resigned more than two years previously, notwithstanding that, “in all likelihood, the Appellant backdated the Resignation.” Part of the Crown’s problem was that its pleadings had only alleged that the appellant had continued as a director rather than that the resignation had been backdated. Accordingly, mildly plausible oral explanations of the appellant were sufficient to “demolish” this diffuse assumption. It also did not help that the Crown’s forensic evidence of backdating was disallowed for technical reasons.
CRA has confirmed that income distributions by a Canadian REIT to an IRA of a U.S.-resident are subject to 15% withholding (unless the REIT does not qualify under the Canadian REIT rules, in which case the distributions would benefit from the Treaty rules applicable to dividends).
This morning's release of four severed letters from the Income Tax Rulings Directorate is now available for your viewing.
CRA accepts that public trading in the shares of a dividend recipient is not part of the same series
In connection with a group reorganization to consolidate income and deductions, Pubco will acquire a royalty interest from a general partnership (Partnership D) which is mostly owned by it and a wholly-owned subsidiary (Subco), with Pubco’s cumulative Canadian development expense account being boosted by the fair market value of the royalty, and with the fair market value proceeds proportionately reducing the CCDE of the partners (mostly it and Subco).
In connection with a subsequent transfer of Subco’s partnership interest in Partnership D to it, it will receive a deemed dividend from Subco. CRA ruled that the exclusion in s. 55(3)(a)(iv) would not apply to taint this deemed dividend notwithstanding that trading will occur in the shares of Pubco (viewed as the dividend recipient), and employees may exercise options. This may reflect the (appropriate) view that irrelevant transactions are not part of the same series. This ruling is more robust than 2013-0501811R3, where representations were given that (to management’s knowledge) the Pubco shareholders did not know about the loss consolidation transactions.
In what hopefully is a trite point, CRA also ruled that s. 97(2) applied to a contribution of property to a partnership (i.e., no equity consideration was given by the partnership).
A s. 88(1) ruling was given respecting the winding-up of a wholly–owned subsidiary without any apparent fussing about articles of dissolution not being filed for XX months.
What's Currently in Progress
- Commentaries for the Income Tax Act provisions for which there are numerous judicial interpretations have to date been posted up to section 9 (with a cleaning-up of related summaries of judicial decisions). Commentaries on other provisions are being added on an ad hoc basis.
- Income tax severed letters released after 1 October 2012 have been uploaded.
- We are behind in summarizing HST/GST interpretations; accordingly, Excise Tax Act materials are not up to date.
Tax Interpretations is currently in beta, and its contents (and some of the linked external materials) should be viewed with caution. None of the content is or should be construed as advice, and readers should obtain any tax (or other) advice from their professional advisors. We disclaim any liability to anyone arising from reliance on any content of this or any other site.