McDonald
J.A.:
This
is
an
appeal
from
a
judgment
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
dismissing
the
appeal
of
Specialty
Manufacturing
Ltd.
(the
Appellant)
from
reassessments
for
its
1984
to
1987
taxation
years.
In
each
of
those
years,
the
Appellant
sought
to
deduct
amounts
totalling
$963,691
in
respect
of
interest
payments
to
two
related
U.S.
corporations
pursuant
to
paragraph
20(1)(c)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act!
(the
Act).
The
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(the
Minister)
denied
$948,
661
of
these
deductions
under
subsection
18(4)
of
the
Act.
Paragraph
20(1)
of
the
Act
reads
as
follows:
20(1)
Notwithstanding
paragraphs
18(1)(a),
(b)
and
(h),
in
computing
a
taxpayer’s
income
for
a
taxation
year
from
a
business
or
property,
there
may
be
deducted
such
of
the
following
amounts
as
are
wholly
applicable
to
that
source
or
such
part
of
the
following
amounts
as
may
reasonably
be
regarded
as
applicable
thereto:
(c)
Interest
—
an
amount
paid
in
the
year
or
payable
in
respect
of
the
year
(depending
on
the
method
regularly
followed
by
the
taxpayer
in
computing
the
taxpayer’s
income),
pursuant
to
a
legal
obligation
to
pay
interest
on
(i)
borrowed
money
used
for
the
purpose
of
earning
income
from
a
business
or
property...
20(1)
Nonobstant
les
dispositions
des
alinéas
18(1
)a),
b)
et
h),
lors
du
calcul
du
revenu
tiré
par
un
contribuable
d’une
entreprise
ou
d’un
bien
pour
une
année
d’imposition,
peuvent
être
déduites
celles
des
sommes
suivantes
qui
se
rap-
portent
entièrement
à
cette
source
de
revenus
ou
la
partie
des
sommes
suivantes
qu'il
est
raisonnablement
être
considérée
comme
s’y
rapportant:
(c)
Intérêts.
--
une
somme
payée
dans
l’année
ou
payable
pour
l’année
(suivant
la
méthode
habituellement
utilisée
par
le
contribuable
dans
le
calcul
de
son
revenu)
en
exécution
d’une
obligation
légale
de
verser
des
intérêts
sur:
(i)
de
l’argent
emprunté
et
utilisé
en
vue
de
tirer
un
revenu
d’une
entreprise
ou
d’un
bien...
Subsection
18(4)
reads
as
follows:
18.
(4)
Notwithstanding
any
other
provision
of
this
Act,
in
computing
the
income
for
a
taxation
year
of
a
corporation
resident
in
Canada
from
a
business
or
property,
no
deduction
shall
be
made
in
respect
of
that
proportion
of
any
amount
otherwise
deductible
in
computing
its
income
for
the
year
in
respect
of
interest
paid
or
payable
by
it
on
outstanding
debts
to
specified
non-residents
that
(a)
the
amount,
if
any,
by
which
(i)
the
greatest
amount
that
the
corporation’s
outstanding
debts
to
specified
non-residents
was
at
any
time
in
the
year,
exceeds
(ii)
3
times
the
aggregate
of
(A)
the
retained
earnings
of
the
corporation
at
the
commencement
of
the
year,
except
to
the
extent
that
those
earnings
include
retained
earnings
of
any
other
corporation,
(B)
the
corporation’s
contributed
surplus
at
the
commencement
of
the
year,
to
the
extent
that
it
was
contributed
by
a
specified
non-resident
shareholder
of
the
corporation,
and
(C)
the
greater
of
the
corporation’s
paid-up
capital
at
the
commencement
of
the
year
and
the
corporation’s
paid-up
capital
at
the
end
of
the
year,
excluding
the
paid-up
capital
in
respect
of
shares
of
any
class
of
the
capital
stock
of
the
corporation
owned
by
a
person
other
than
a
specified
non-resident
shareholder
of
the
corporation,
is
of
(b)
the
amount
determined
under
subparagraph
(a)(i)
in
respect
of
the
corporation
for
the
year.
18.
(4)
Nonobstant
les
autres
dispositions
de
la
présente
loi,
dans
le
calcul
du
revenu
d’une
corporation
résidant
au
Canada,
tiré,
pour
une
année
d’imposition,
d'une
entreprise
ou
de
biens,
aucune
déduction
ne
peut
être
faite
relativement
à
la
fraction
des
sommes
déductibles
par
ailleurs
dans
le
calcul
de
son
revenu
pour
l’année
au
titre
des
intérêts
payés
ou
payables
par
cette
corporation
sur
les
dettes
de
la
corporation
qui
nont
pas
encore
été
payées
à
des
non-résidents
déterminés,
représentée
par
le
rapport
entre
(a)
la
fraction,
si
fraction
il
y
a,
(i)
du
montant
le
plus
élevé
auquel
s’élevaient
les
dettes
de
la
corporation,
qui
nont
pas
encore
été
payées
à
des
non-résidents
déterminés,
à
une
date
quelconque
de
lannée,
(ii)
trois
fois
le
total
des
montants
suivants:
(A)
les
bénéfices
non
répartis
de
la
corporation
au
début
de
l’année,
sauf
dans
la
mesure
où
ces
bénéfices
comprennent
des
bénéfices
non
distribués
d’une
autre
corporation,
(B)
le
surplus
d’apport
de
la
corporation
au
début
de
l’année,
dans
la
mesure
où
il
a
été
fourni
par
un
actionnaire
non
résidant
déterminé
de
la
corporation,
et
(C)
le
plus
élevé
du
capital
versé
de
la
corporation
au
début
de
l’année
ou
de
son
capital
versé
à
la
fin
de
l’année,
à
l’exclusion
du
capital
versé
a
l?égard
des
actions
d’une
catégorie
quelconque
du
capital-
actions
de
la
corporation
appartenant
à
une
personne
autre
qu?un
actionnaire
non
résidant
déterminé
de
la
corporation;
et
(b)
la
somme
déterminée
en
vertu
du
sous-alinéa
(a)(i)
relativement
à
la
société
pour
l’année.
Outstanding
debts
to
specified
non-residents,
Specified
non-resident
and
specified
non-resident
shareholder
are
defined
in
subsection
18(5).
At
the
relevant
times,
these
definitions
read
as
follows:
18(5)(a)
outstanding
debts
to
specified
non-residents
of
a
corporation
at
any
particular
time
in
a
taxation
year
means
(i)
the
aggregate
of
all
amounts
each
of
which
is
an
amount
outstanding
at
that
time
as
or
on
account
of
a
debt
or
other
obligation
to
pay
an
amount
(A)
that
was
payable
by
the
corporation
to
a
person
who
was,
at
any
time
in
the
year,
(I)
a
specified
non-resident
shareholder
of
the
corporation,
or
(II)
a
non-resident
person,
or
a
non-resident-
owned
investment
corporation,
who
was
not
dealing
at
arm
’s
length
with
a
specified
Shareholder
of
the
corporation,
and
(B)
on
which
any
amount
in
respect
of
interest
paid
or
payable
by
the
corporation
is
or
would
be,
but
for
subsection
(4),
deductible
in
computing
the
corporation’s
income
for
the
year,...
(b)
specified
non-resident
shareholder
of
a
corporation
at
any
time
means
a
specified
shareholder
of
the
corporation
who
was
at
that
time
a
non-resident
person
or
a
non-resident-owned
investment
corporation,
and
(c)
specified
shareholder
of
a
corporation
at
any
time
means
a
shareholder
who
at
that
time,
either
alone
or
together
with
persons
with
whom
that
he
was
not
dealing
at
arm?s
length,
owned
25%
or
more
of
the
issued
shares
of
any
class
of
the
capital
stock
of
the
corporation.
18(5)(a)
dettes
de
la
corporation
qui
nont
pas
encore
été
payées
à
des
non-résidents
déterminés,
à
une
date
donnée
dune
année
dimposition,
désigne
(i)
le
total
de
toutes
les
sommes
dont
chacune
représente
une
somme
due
à
cette
date,
a
titre
ou
au
titre
d’une
dette
ou
autre
obligation
de
verser
un
montant,
(A)
qui
était
payable
par
la
corporation
à
une
personne
qui
était,
à
une
date
quelconque
de
l’année,
(I)
un
actionnaire
non
résidant
déterminé
de
la
corporation,
Ou
(II)
une
personne
non-résidante
ou
une
corporation
de
placement
appartenant
à
des
non-résidents,
qui
avait
un
lien
de
dépendance
avec
un
actionnaire
déterminé
de
la
corporation,
(B)
au
titre
de
laquelle
toute
somme
relative
à
des
intérêts
payés
ou
payables
par
la
corporation
est
déductible
ou
serait
déductible,
n?eût
été
le
paragraphe
(4),
dans
le
calcul
du
revenu
de
la
corporation
pour
l’année,
à
l’exclusion,...
(b)
actionnaire
non-résidant
déterminé
d’une
corporation
à
une
date
quelconque
désigne
un
actionnaire
déterminé
de
la
corporation
qui
était
à
cette
date
une
personne
non
résidante
ou
une
corporation
de
placements
appartenant
à
des
non-
résidents;
et
(c)
actionnaire
déterminé
d’une
corporation
à
une
date
quelconque
désigne
un
actionnaire
de
la
corporation
qui
seul,
ou
avec
d
autres
personnes
avec
lesquelles
il
avait
un
lien
de
dépendance,
était
à
cette
date
propriétaire
d’au
moins
25%
des
actions
émises
d’une
catégorie
quelconque
du
capital-actions
de
la
corporation.
[emphasis
added]
Also
of
significance
is
section
251
of
the
Act.
The
relevant
portions
of
this
section
read
as
follows:
251(1)
For
the
purposes
of
this
Act,
(a)
related
persons
shall
be
deemed
not
to
deal
with
each
other
at
arm’s
length;
and
(b)
it
is
a
question
of
fact
whether
persons
not
related
to
each
other
were
at
a
particular
time
dealing
with
each
other
at
arm’s
length.
(2)
For
the
purpose
of
this
Act,
“related
persons”,
or
persons
related
to
each
other,
are
(b)
a
corporation
and
(i)
a
person
who
controls
the
corporation,
if
it
is
controlled
by
one
person,
(ii)
a
person
who
is
a
member
of
a
related
group
that
controls
the
corporation,
or
(iii)
any
person
related
to
a
person
described
in
subparagraph
(i)
or
(ii);
and
(c)
any
two
corporations
(i)
if
they
are
controlled
by
the
same
person
or
group
of
persons…
(iii)
if
one
of
the
corporations
is
controlled
by
one
person
and
that
person
is
related
to
any
member
of
a
related
group
that
controls
the
other
corporation,...
251(1)
Aux
fins
de
la
présente
loi:
(a)
des
personnes
liées
sont
réputées
avoir
entre
elles
un
lien
de
dépendance;
(b)
la
question
de
savoir
si
des
personnes
non
liées
entre
elles
n’avaient
aucun
lien
de
dépendance
à
un
moment
donné
est
une
question
de
fait.
(2)
Aux
fins
de
la
présente
loi,
sont
des
“personnes
liées”
ou
des
personnes
liées
entre
elles,
sont
(b)
une
corporation
et:
(i)
une
personne
qui
contrôle
la
corporation
si
cette
dernière
est
contrôlée
par
une
personne,
(11)
une
personne
qui
est
membre
d’un
groupe
lié
qui
contrôle
la
corporation,
(iii)
toute
personne
liée
à
une
personne
visée
au
sous-alinéa
(i)
ou
(11);
(c)
deux
corporations
quelconques
(i)
si
elles
sont
contrôlées
par
la
même
personne
ou
le
même
groupe
de
personnes,...
(iii)
si
l?une
des
corporations
est
contrôlée
par
une
personne
et
si
cette
personne
est
liée
à
un
membre
d?un
groupe
lié
qui
con-
tôle
l?autre
corporation.
[emphasis
added]
It
is
clear
that
where
interest
is
payable
by
a
Canadian
corporation
to
a
non-resident
shareholder
holding
or
controlling
more
than
a
25%
interest
in
the
company,
subsection
18(4)
operates
to
limit
any
deduction
of
interest
pursuant
to
paragraph
20(1)(c)
of
the
Act
if
the
debt
to
equity
ratio
of
the
taxpayer
corporation
exceeds
3
to
I.
The
Appellant
argues
that
as
the
Minister
has
admitted
that
the
arrangements
in
this
case
are
structured
as
if
they
were
between
arms
length
parties,
the
provisions
of
the
Canada-United
States
of
America
Tax
Convention?
(the
1942
Treaty)
and
the
Canada-
United
States
Tax
Convention
(1980)$
(the
1980
Treaty)
operate
to
preclude
the
application
of
subsection
18(4).
Specifically,
the
Appellant
argues
that,
in
respect
of
his
1984
and
1985
taxation
years,
paragraph
1
of
Article
IV
of
the
1942
Treaty
supercedes
the
application
of
subsection
18(4)
of
the
Act.
This
article
reads:
(a)
When
a
United
States
enterprise,
by
reason
of
its
participation
in
the
management
or
capital
of
a
Canadian
enterprise,
makes
or
imposes
on
the
latter,
in
their
commercial
or
financial
relations,
conditions
different
from
those
which
would
be
made
with
an
independent
enterprise,
any
profits
which
should
normally
have
appeared
in
the
balance
sheet
of
the
Canadian
enterprise
but
which
have
been,
in
this
matter,
diverted
to
the
United
States
enterprise,
may
be
incorporated
in
the
taxable
profits
of
the
Canadian
enterprise,
subject
to
applicable
measures
of
appeal.
(b)
In
order
to
effect
the
inclusion
of
such
profits
in
the
taxable
profits
of
the
Canadian
enterprise,
the
competent
authority
of
Canada
may,
when
necessary,
rectify
the
accounts
of
the
Canadian
enterprise,
notably
to
correct
errors
and
omissions
and
to
re-establish
the
prices
or
remuneration
entered
in
the
books
at
values
which
would
prevail
between
independent
persons
dealing
at
arm’s
length.
To
facilitate
such
rectification
the
competent
authorities
of
the
contracting
States
may
consult
together
with
a
view
to
such
determination
of
profits
of
the
Canadian
enterprise
as
may
appear
fair
and
reasonable.
[emphasis
added]
Similarly,
for
its
1986
and
1987
taxation
years,
the
Appellant
argues
that
paragraph
1
of
Article
IX
of
the
1980
Treaty
prevents
the
Minister
from
applying
subsection
18(4).
This
provision
reads:
I.
Where
a
person
in
a
Contracting
State
and
a
person
in
the
other
Contracting
State
are
related
and
where
the
arrangements
between
them
differ
from
those
which
would
be
made
between
unrelated
persons,
each
State
may
adjust
the
amount
of
the
income,
loss
or
tax
payable
to
reflect
the
income,
deductions,
credits
or
allowances
which
would,
but
for
those
arrangements,
have
been
taken
into
account
in
computing
such
income,
loss
or
tax.
[emphasis
added]
Facts
The
Appellant
is
a
corporation
in
the
business
of
distributing
novelties
and
souvenirs
at
expositions,
carnivals
and
fairs.
The
Appellant
was
incorporated
in
British
Columbia
and
at
all
relevant
times
was
resident
in
Canada
for
purposes
of
the
Act.
Up
to
April
1,
1987,
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Ben
Mayers
(the
Mayers),
two
U.S.
residents,
owned
all
the
shares
of
the
Appellant.
On
April
1,
1987
the
Mayers
transferred
their
shares
of
the
Appellant
to
Ace
Novelty
Co.,
Inc.
(Ace),
a
U.S.
corporation
which
manufactures,
sells
and
imports
novelties
and
souvenirs
in
Washington
State.
At
all
relevant
times,
the
Mayers
were
the
sole
shareholders
of
Ace.
Mr.
Mayers
was
also
the
sole
shareholder
of
World’s
Fair
Souvenirs,
Inc.
(Worlds),
another
novelty
and
souvenir
company
based
in
Washington
State.
At
all
relevant
times,
the
Mayers,
Ace
and
Worlds
were
related
persons
for
the
purposes
of
the
Act.
Furthermore,
pursuant
to
section
251,
they
are
deemed
not
to
deal
with
one
another
at
arms
length.
Until
April
1,
1987,
the
Mayers
were
specified
non-resident
shareholders
of
the
Appellant
for
the
purposes
of
subsection
18(4)
by
virtue
of
the
fact
that
they
owned
or
controlled
100%
of
the
Appellants
shares.
After
April
1,
1987,
Ace
became
a
specified
non-resident
shareholder
of
the
Appellant.
It
is
clear
that
any
amounts
that
the
Appellant
borrowed
from
Ace
and
Worlds
would
be
outstanding
debts
to
specified
non-residents
for
the
purposes
of
subsection
18(4).
At
all
relevant
times,
these
amounts
were
payable
to
either:
(1)
non-resident
persons,
i.e.
Ace
and
Worlds
who
were
not
dealing
at
arms
length
with
specified
non-resident
shareholders
of
the
Appellant;
or
(2)
specified
non-resident
shareholders
directly
(i.e.
Ace
after
April
1,
1987).
During
1983
and
1984
Ace
and
Worlds
negotiated
a
contract,
on
behalf
of
the
Appellant,
with
the
Expo
86
Corporation
to
operate
the
novelty
and
souvenir
concessions
during
the
World
Exposition
(Expo
86)
held
in
Vancouver,
B.C.
from
May
2
to
October
13,
1986.
On
June
6,
1984,
the
Appellant,
Ace
and
World’s
entered
into
an
agreement
that
Ace
and
World’s
would
provide
management,
administrative
and
financial
services
to
the
Appellant
in
respect
of
the
Expo
86
contract.°
During
its
1984-1987
taxation
years,
the
Appellant
borrowed
money
(the
Debts)
from
Ace
and
Worlds
in
order
to
finance
its
operations
and
carry
out
the
Expo
86
contract.
In
each
of
the
relevant
taxation
years,
the
Appellants
capital
structure
was
as
follows:
|
1984
|
1985
|
1986
|
1987
|
From
Ace
|
$1,037,877
|
$2,593,569
|
$3,909,883
|
$3,909,883
|
From
World’s
|
nil
|
$2,661,144
|
$6,184,558
|
$6,184,558
|
Total
Debt
|
$1,037,877
|
$5,254,713
|
$10,094.441
|
$10.094.441
|
Total
Equity^
|
$67482
|
$100
|
$100
|
$100
|
Total
Debt+Equity
|
$1,105,359
|
$5,254,813
|
$10,094.541
|
$10,094,541
|
To
fund
the
Debts,
Ace
and
Worlds
borrowed
money
from
Seafirst
Bank
in
Washington
State
(Seafirst).
In
its
1984-1987
taxation
years
the
Appellant
paid
or
incurred
a
liability
for
interest
to
Ace
and
World’s
in
respect
of
the
Debts
as
follows:
CREDITOR
|
1984
|
1985
|
1986
|
1987
|
Ace
|
$76,984
|
$215,673
|
$110,737
|
$64,923
|
World’s
|
nil
|
$334,659
|
$160,715
|
nil
|
TOTAL
|
$76,984
|
$550,332
|
$271,452
|
$64,923
|
The
interest
rate
paid
by
the
Appellant
was
equal
to
the
interest
rate
paid
by
Ace
and
World’s
to
Seafirst
on
the
money
they
had
borrowed
to
fund
the
Debts.
In
computing
its
income
for
the
1984-1987
taxation
years,
the
Appellant
deducted
the
interest
paid
or
payable
to
Ace
and
World’s
in
each
year
pursuant
to
paragraph
20(1)(c)
of
the
Act.
Pursuant
to
subsection
18(4)
of
the
Act,
the
Minister
reassessed
the
Appellant
in
the
following
manner:
|
1984
|
1985
|
1986
|
1987
|
Appellants
total
debt
|
$1,037,877
|
$5,254,713
|
$
10,094,441
|
$10,094,441
|
3
x
Appellant’s
equity
(1.e.
permitted
|
|
debt
under
s.
18(4))
|
$202,446
|
$300
|
$300
|
$300
|
|
1984
|
1985
|
1986
|
1987
|
Amount
the
Appellants
debt
exceeds
|
|
the
permitted
debt
|
$835,431
|
$5,254,413
|
$10,094,141
|
$10,094,141
|
Interest
paid
to
Ace
and
Worlds
|
$76,967
|
$550,332
|
$271,452
|
$64,923
|
Interest
deduction
disallowed
|
$61,967
|
$550,330
|
$271,443
|
$64,921
|
Interest
deduction
allowed
|
$15,017
|
$2
|
$9
|
$2
|
The
Appellant
objected
to
the
reassessments
for
each
year
on
the
basis
that
the
Ministers
disallowance
of
the
interest
deductions
was
not
permitted
under
the
terms
of
the
Canada-U.S.
Tax
Treaty
in
force
in
each
of
the
relevant
taxation
years.
Specifically,
the
Appellant
argued:
(1)
that
Article
IV
of
the
1942
Treaty
precluded
the
application
of
subsection
18(4)
to
its
1984
and
1985
taxation
years;
and
(2)
that
Article
IX
of
the
1980
Treaty
applied
to
its
1986
and
1987
taxation
years.
The
reassessments
were
subsequently
confirmed
by
the
Minister
and
the
Appellant
appealed
to
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada.
The
Tax
Court
Judge
dismissed
the
Appellants
appeal
on
the
grounds
that
the
neither
the
1942
Treaty
nor
the
1980
Treaty
limited
the
application
of
subsection
18(4).
Analysis
As
noted,
subsection
18(4)
provides
that
where
more
than
25%
of
the
shares
of
a
Canadian
corporate
taxpayer
are
owned
by
a
non-resident,
the
deduction
of
interest
by
the
taxpayer
pursuant
to
paragraph
20(1)(c)
for
interest
paid
on
loans
obtained
from
the
non-resident
shareholder
is
limited
to
the
extent
that
the
taxpayers
debt
level
does
not
exceed
three
times
its
equity.
If
the
corporations
debt
to
equity
ratio
exceeds
3:1,
the
interest
on
the
amount
of
the
loans
in
excess
of
this
ratio
is
treated
as
income
and
the
interest
deduction
is
disallowed.
The
motivation
for
the
imposition
of
the
3:1
debt/equity
rule
(or
thin
capitalization
rule)
is
to
prevent
the
non-resident
shareholders
from
capitalizing
a
Canadian
corporation
with
excessive
debt,
thereby
deducting
the
interest
on
the
excessive
debt
in
computing
taxable
income,
that
is
to
say,
withdrawing
income
from
the
Canadian
corporation
as
interest
without
pay-
ing
Canadian
income
tax
thereon.
As
stated
by
Madame
Justice
Reed
in
Uddeholm
Limited:
There
is
no
dispute
as
to
the
purpose
of
subsections
18(4)
to
(8)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
...Those
provisions
are
directed
at
preventing
non-residents
of
Canada
who
own
significant
shareholdings
(generally
over
25%),
in
Canadian
resident
corporations,
from
withdrawing
the
profits
of
the
Canadian
corporation
in
the
form
of
interest
payments
rather
than
in
the
form
of
dividends
paid
on
the
shares
of
the
corporation.
1
quote
from
page
4423
of
the
CCH
Canadian
Tax
Service:
Both
interest
and
dividends
paid
to
non-residents
are
subject
to
withholding
tax
under
Part
XIII
but
since
interest
is,
but
for
the
limitation
in
subsection
18(4),
deductible
in
computing
the
income
of
the
resident
corporation
subject
to
Canadian
tax,
it
would
clearly
be
to
a
non-resident’s
advantage
to
finance
the
operation
of
a
Canadian
resident
corporation
through
interest
bearing
debt
rather
than
through
share
capital,
which
would
lead
to
the
establishment
of
thinly
capitalized
corporations.
It
is
uncontested
that
in
the
absence
of
the
U.S.-Canada
Tax
Treaties,
subsection
18(4)
would
operate
to
disallow
$948,661
of
the
interest
deductions
claimed
by
the
Appellant.
The
Appellant
contends
that
Article
IV
of
the
1942
Treaty
and
Article
IX
of
the
1980
Treaty
operate
to
restrict
the
Ministers
authority
under
subsection
18(4).
The
relevant
1942
and
1980
treaty
provisions
clearly
indicate
that
where
two
or
more
related
parties
engage
in
transactions
which
do
not
reflect
arms
length
arrangements,
the
tax
consequences
of
the
transactions
may
be
adjusted
by
domestic
taxing
authorities.
In
essence,
the
Appellants
argument
is
that
the
converse
must
also
be
true.
In
other
words,
where
two
or
more
related
parties
engage
in
a
transaction
on
terms
which
reflect
an
arms
length
relationship,
domestic
taxing
authorities
are
precluded
from
adjusting
the
income,
deductions
or
other
tax
consequences
of
the
transaction.
Given
the
facts
of
this
case,
I
find
it
unnecessary
to
deal
with
the
Appellants
arguments
regarding
the
application
of
the
Tax
Treaties.
The
fundamental
basis
for
the
Appellants
argument
is
an
apparent
admission
by
the
Minister
during
discovery
that
the
arrangements
between
the
Appellant,
Ace
and
Worlds
were
the
same
as
if
they
were
arms
length
trans-
actions.
The
Appellant
relies
upon
the
following
answers
given
on
discovery
by
Myrna
Chen,
a
senior
appeals
officer
with
Revenue
Canada:
Q:
Now,
I
take
it
youd
agree
with
me
that
the
interest
rate
paid
by
Specialty
to
Ace
and
Worlds
Fair
for
the
1984
through
to
the
1987
taxation
years
on
the
debts
shown
in
paragraph
3.28
was
an
arms-length
rate
of
interest;
is
that
correct
A:
Yes.
[Counsel
for
the
Crown]:
Market
rate,
arms
length.
Q:
Well
particularly,
was
it
an
arms-length
rate
of
interest
A:
Yes.
Q:
...Would
it
be
correct
to
say
that
in
analyzing
article
9,
you
assumed
that
the
structure
of
capital
was
the
same
as
it
would
have
been
in
an
arms
length
transaction
A:
Correct.
The
Appellant
also
relies
on
the
following
passages
from
the
Statement
of
Agreed
Facts
in
this
regard:
22.
The
Debts
[owed
by
the
Appellant
to
Ace
and
Worlds]
were
true
debts.
25.
The
interest
rate
paid
by
the
Appellant
to
Ace
and
Worlds
in
respect
of
the
Debts
was
an
arms
length
interest
rate,
equal
to
the
rate
Ace
and
Worlds
paid
to
Seafirst
on
the
money
borrowed
by
them
to
fund
the
Debts.
There
is
no
indication
that
the
interest
rate
paid
by
the
Appellant
was
not
an
arms
length
interest
rate,
nor
is
there
any
issue
that
the
Debts
were
true
debts.
The
only
issue
is
whether
the
capital
structure
of
the
Appellant
is
the
same
as
or
different
than
an
arms
length
capital
structure.
It
obviously
is
not
the
same.
The
Appellant
had
virtually
no
equity
capital
and
was
financed
almost
exclusively
by
loans
from
Ace
and
Worlds.
Indeed,
Ms.
Chen
noted
the
emphasis
on
debt
financing
in
the
Appellants
capital
structure:
Q:
And
you
say,
It
appears
that
the
arrangement
is
same
as
unrelated
persons
and
then
in
bold
letter,
you
say,
™
EXCEPT
FOR
THE
STRUCTURE
OF
CAPITAL.
I
therefore
conclude
that
the
arrangement
is
not
the
same
as
unrelated
persons.
Could
you
explain
for
me,
please,
what
you
meant
by
the
words
except
for
the
structure
of
capital
A:
When
I
looked
at
this,
I
was
reviewing
the
terms
of
the
loan
being
the
interest
rate,
essentially
the
interest
rate,
that
was
charged
between
corporations,
and
I
said
that
it
was
dealt
with
as
though
they
were
arms-length.
When
I
put
this
in
there,
I
was
thinking
about
the
possibility
that
an
arms
length
party
might
not
loan
as
much
as
what
Sea-First
--
or
sorry,
as
what
Ace
and
World
would
have.
She
continued
stating:
Q:
All
right.
A:
So
it
kind
of
throws
you.
Q:
No,
go
on.
A:
So
1
was
strictly
looking
at
what
the
terms
of
the
loans
were,
and
I
said,
okay,
it
is
what
an
arms
length
party
would
have
entered
into
so
therefore
well
accept
it.
Q:
But
particularly
on
the
words
except
for
the
structure
of
capital,
do
I
now
understand
you
to
say
that
those
words
did
not
enter
into
your
assumptions
at
all
in
re-assessing
Specialty
A:
For
the
purposes
of
analyzing
article
9,
yes.
The
most
that
can
be
said
about
the
admissions
made
by
Ms.
Chen
is
that
they
are
ambiguous.
More
likely
they
do
not
reflect
the
facts
fully.
The
Court
will
not
ignore
the
obvious.
Clearly,
a
debt
to
equity
ratio
of
over
$10,000,000
debt
to
$100
equity
does
not
resemble
an
arms
length
situation.
Obviously,
with
virtually
no
equity
capital,
no
arms
length
lender
would
have
issued
loans
to
the
Appellant
in
the
substantial
amounts
at
issue
in
this
case.
On
the
facts
before
the
Court,
the
loan
transactions
giving
rise
to
the
interest
claimed
by
the
Appellant
are
clearly
non-arms
length
transactions.
Accordingly,
the
Minister
was
entitled
to
use
subsection
18(4)
of
the
Act
to
restrict
the
deductions
claimed
under
paragraph
20(1
)(c)
of
the
Act.
Indeed,
such
a
result
is
authorized
by
both
Article
IV
of
the
1942
Treaty
and
Article
IX
of
the
1980
Treaty.
It
must
be
noted
that
the
Tax
Court
Judge
did
not
address
the
issue
of
whether
the
loan
transactions
were
the
same
as
those
between
arms
length
parties.
He
adopted
facts
from
the
Statement
of
Agreed
Facts
put
forward
by
the
parties,
but
did
not
address
the
admissions
of
Ms.
Chen.
Accordingly,
he
did
not
make
any
express
factual
findings
which
are
in
conflict
with
my
conclusion
that
these
were
not
the
same
as
arms
length
transactions.
Disposition
I
would
dismiss
the
appeal
with
costs.
Appeal
dismissed.